Center for Economic Analyses studies from Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia THE FUTURE OF LOCAL...

Case studies from Romania,Bulgaria and Macedonia

THE FUTUREOF LOCAL

GOVERNMENTFINANCECase studies from Romania,Bulgaria and Macedonia

THE FUTUREOF LOCAL

GOVERNMENTFINANCE

Center for Economic Analyses

Local Governmentand Public ServiceReform Initiative

Sponsored by LGI/OSIEditor Marjan Nikolov


Sponsored by LGI/OSIEditor Marjan Nikolov

TThhee FFuuttuurree ooff LLooccaall

GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt FFiinnaannccee::Case sstudies ffrom RRomania,

Bulgaria aand MMacedonia


Editor, Marjan NIKOLOV

November 2006, Skopje

General information about CEA

Address:

CENTER FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSES (CEA)Bul. Jane Sandanski 63/3,1000 Skopje Macedonia

Tel: + 389 (0)2 24 44 766GSM: + 389 70 834 636

TIN: 4030003479278Reg. 5763061

Account number:

Stopanska Banka AD SkopjeAccount number: 200000856268559

Web page and e-mail:

www.cea.org.mkwww.lsg-data.org.mk

[email protected]

The publication of these country reports has been funded by the Local Government and Public Service ReformInitiative of the Open Society Institute in Budapest.

The judgments expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of LGI.All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electron-

ic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any infor-mation storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

3

Contents

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

COUNTRY REPORT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT BORROWING IN ROMANIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

COUNTRY REPORT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT BORROWING IN BULGARIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

COUNTRY REPORT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT BORROWING IN MACEDONIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

4

Foreword

This book is the result of a CEA research funded by the Local Government and Public Service ReformInitiative of the Open Society Institute (LGI/OSI) and managed by Marjan Nikolov, President of CEA.

CEA approached LGI/OSI with an unsolicited proposal for a cross country study on LGU borrowing withan expectation to set out lessons that can be learned by Macedonia. The overall objective of the study onlocal government borrowing is to accomplish an all-encompassing review that systematically captures theentirety of the fiscal decentralization processes with an emphasis on local government borrowing in eachof the three transition countries: Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia.

Macedonia is in a position to develop the legal and policy framework now, in anticipation of future devel-opment of a municipality credit market. Macedonia can learn from the Romanian and Bulgarian experiencebut also can learn from problems that have become clear in other countries as well. Excessive borrowingby sub-national government or debt issuance in the absence of an adequate legal framework (one that clar-ifies critical issues like the status of guarantees or the remedies available to lenders in the event of a munic-ipality's non-payment) has exacerbated any national economic crisis. Also, premature borrowing, prior toa municipality establishing its creditworthiness or having identified clear investment priorities, is likely todrain local budget resources and add risk to the fiscal system. The benefit of soundly based local borrow-ing is large, but the risks involved with poorly prepared borrowing can be great. Stakeholders-LGU, nation-al government, banks, and potential investors in municipal debt share an interest in ensuring that the poli-cy issues surrounding credit market development are well understood and that an appropriate legal frame-work is in place before the market actually opens.

CEA wishes to express the highest gratitude to OSI/LGI Budapest for the financial and other supportwithout which the project: LGU Borrowing in Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia could not have been con-ducted, with particular thanks to Mr. George Guess, Mr. Adrian Ionescu and Ms. Marietta Kleineisel.

The Center for Economic Analyses (CEA) is a think tank of economists who share a common vision forthe Republic of Macedonia as an emerging new European economy integrated into the regional and world-wide markets.

The Mission of CEA is to continuously research economic development and economic policy in theRepublic of Macedonia and to offer recommendations, suggestions and measures where it is deemedappropriate.

November 2006, Skopje Marjan Nikolov, MSc

5

COUNTRY RREPORT:

LOCAL GGOVERNMENT BBORROWING IIN RROMANIA

MARJAN NIKOLOV

Center for Economic Analyses-CEA

Sponsored by:

Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative

Open Society Institute

Budapest, Hungary


Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this report are those of the Center for Economic Analyses-CEA

and do not represent the opinion of other concerned institutions.

It is the responsibility of other authors to cite this report when it has informed their research

and publications.

6

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92. Structure and scope of the Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93. Expenditure assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124. Structure of the revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Own revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Shared revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Capital revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

5. Intergovernmental transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Earmarked transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Equalization fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

6. Borrowing pillar of decentralization in Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19External borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Internal borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Characteristics of debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

i. Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21ii. Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21iii. Debt Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21iv. Foreign Currency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Approval, monitoring and disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Financial distress and insolvency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

7. Financial management issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258. Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Annex 1. Field visit in Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Annex 2. Relevant legislation in Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Annex 3. Applications to the Commission to authorize borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Annex 4. Norms and procedures for authorizing local government borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

7

List of abbreviations

CEA Macedonian based think tank-Center for Economic AnalysesCNVM Romanian National Securities Commission CSPD Romanian think tank-Center of Studies and Programs for DevelopmentEBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentIPP Romanian Institute for Public PolicyISPA EU pre-accession instrument, Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-AccessionLGAP Local Government Assistance ProgramLGU Local Government UnitLPF Law on Local Public FinancesMPF Ministry of Public FinancesPHARE EU pre-accession instrument, Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their

EconomiesPIT Personal Income TaxRON Romanian currencySAPARD EU pre-accession instrument, Special Accession Program for Agriculture

and Rural DevelopmentUSAID US Agency for International Development VAT Value Added TaxWB World Bank

List of tables and figures

Table 1 Municipal services in terms of self sustainability from user feesTable 2 Competencies at local and county levelTable 3 Proportion of local public expenditure from total public expenditureTable 4 Romanian County expenditure as % of GDPTable 5 Wages and salaries as % of total expenditureTable 6 Capital expenditures as % of total expenditureTable 7 Evolution of own revenues as % of total revenues between 1999-2003Table 8 Percentage of own revenuesTable 9 Structure of revenues Table 10 Characteristics of financial crises and insolvency at LGU level Table 11 The profile of Romanian Municipal Bond Features, 2004Table 12 List of people interviewed in Romania

Figure 1 Government structure in Romania

8

Acknowledgments

CEA wishes to express highest gratitude to the OSI/LGI Budapest for the financial and other sup-port without which this project could not have been conducted, especially to Mr. George Guess, Mr.Adrian Ionescu and Ms. Marietta Kleineisel.

CEA also wishes to thank the CSPD and its Director, Ms. Gabriela Matei for the hospitality, organi-zational issues and useful comments on this paper.

In spring 2006 the Parliament of Romania adopted a number of laws that will affect local govern-ments both in the short and long term. The package of laws contained the following five drafts:

! Amendments to Law No. 215/2001 on Local Authorities ! Decentralization Law to replace Law 339/2004! Amendments to Law No. 340/2004 on the Institution of the Prefect ! Draft Law on Local Public Finance to replace Ordinance 45/2004! Amendments to Law No. 188/1999 on Public Employees Functions

The CEA visit to Romania took place between major changes in the legislation and this made it evenmore challenging to address the issues. CSPD was of great help in making clear what the changes inlegislation were and how they affect the context of LGU borrowing in Romania.

Special thanks go to the people in Romania that we interviewed both for their time spent in meet-ing us and for sharing their experience with us.

Our beneficiaries in Macedonia: ZELS, represented by Mr. Ace Kocevski (Mayor of Veles) andMinistry of Finance, represented by Ms. Maja Parnardzieva (Head of Public Debt Department) hold aspecial importance for their contribution.

This report has been prepared by Marjan Nikolov, MSc ([email protected]). Critical review anduseful comments and inputs were provided by Malgorzata Markiewitz, Economist at CEA. This docu-ment will be published on the CEA web site (http://www.cea.org.mk) 10 working days after submis-sion of the final report to LGI/OSI.

9

1. INTRODUCTION

The overall objective of this study on local government1 borrowing is to provide a review to capturethe entirety of the fiscal decentralization processes with an emphasis on local government borrowing ineach of the following three transition countries: Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia. As part of this largerstudy, the main purpose of this country report is to provide an overview of the progress and issuesregarding local government borrowing in Romania and to draw important lessons for Macedonia.

This study does not present a credit rating analysis nor does it cover specific aspects in detail, butrather it provides an overview of each of the building blocks of intergovernmental fiscal relations.These building blocks are the structure of the government sector, delineation of expenditure responsi-bilities, assignment of revenue sources, intergovernmental transfers, financial management issues,sub-national borrowing, the impact of infrastructural development on the income side of sub-nationalbudgets and the characteristics of municipal debt. The study also considers the technical nature of thestrengths and weaknesses of the decentralization process, with special emphasis on the experiencegained in local government borrowing and makes recommendations for future developments.

We base our opinions not only on what was presented during interviews but by examining the avail-able reports on Romania and the existing laws that were shown to us.

2. STRUCTURE AND SCOPE OF THE GOVERNMENT

The economic problems of Romania led to unrest and eventually to the political revolution that wasa feature of Christmas 1989 (see more in Laure 2000). In March 1989, there was an open letter to thePresident from six retired Romanian Communist party (RCP) officials accusing him of disregard forthe Constitution, economic mismanagement, and discrimination through the rural urbanization pro-gram imposed on ethnic Hungarians. The unrest spread leading to other political events taking placebefore Ceausescu was captured while attempting to flee. He was executed after a summary trial.

In October 1990, Prime Minister Petre Roman introduced laws to accelerate Romania's transitionto a market economy. After Ceausescu's overthrow, a complete restructuring of the economy wasplanned, with emphasis on use of market forces and private ownership. In late 1991, a unifiedexchange rate was introduced and the internal convertibility of the currency, the lei, was established.In early 1993, the government announced a four-year economic reform program supported by the IMF.This plan included progressive elimination of price subsidies for staple goods and services, removalof controls on interest and exchange rates, liberalization of trade, accelerated privatization and reduc-ing inflation.

The territorial organization of Romania was established by the Law on Local Public Administration(no. 69/1991) as a two tiered system of local government, including both counties and municipalitieswithout a hierarchical relationship. This Law was replaced in 2001 by Law 215, which was furtheramended in July 2006 by Law 286. The territorial units now consist of 41 Counties (judete), 262Towns (orase) and 2,686 Communes (comune)2. A County structure consists of: Capital (municipiu

1) In this report we will use the term Local Government Unit-LGU, to designate the units of subnational government, local government, at coun-ty level, communes, municipalities and cities interchangeably. When necessary for more clear text we will stress what is the tier we are talk-ing about.

10

resedinta de judet), several Municipalities3 (municipii) and all the towns, communes and villages with-in the county's territorial boundaries. Bucharest, the country's capital, provides a unique case as it isdivided into six sectors (districts), each with its own local council and mayor, with separate budgets,under the authority of Bucharest General Council.

As for financial policies, in the beginning of the 90s the Law on the state budget4 was used to draftand implement Local Government Unit's (LGU) financial policies and included information about thefunds allocated to the LGU throughout Romania. There were also special funds for investment purpos-es at local level. These were earmarked and managed by the line ministries. Then in 1994, with theLaw on Local Taxes and Charges, fiscal decentralization in Romania was initiated and the own sourcerevenues of LGU were defined. The European Charter of Local Self-Government was ratified by theRomanian Parliament in 1997.

Each line ministry responsible for providing a certain public service maintains an office in eachcounty, headed by a director. Also, the Ministry of Public Finance has a number of tax directorates andtreasury offices in each county. A Prefect is appointed by the Ministry of Administration and Interiorfor each county. A Prefect has the responsibility to "lead" the activities of the deconcentrated officesof the line ministries and to ensure that decisions made by local councils are in accordance with thelaw. Each county has an elected county council (the so called "judetean" council), presided over bythe President of the County, with an executive apparatus for the public activities within the county. Thecentral government is represented at each local council by a secretary who is appointed by the CountyPrefect. The secretary must countersign all decisions of the municipal council. The secretary isappointed by the Prefect following a proposal by the local council which is in turn based on the rec-ommendation of the Mayor. The secretary has to undergo several tests before being appointed. Theprocess by which the secretary is appointed gives decentralization in Romania a greater flavor ofdevolved decision making.(see figure 1) However it raises concerns about political interference in theadministrative decision-making process, as local autonomy is hindered by the roles of the prefect,secretary and, in some instances, the role of the deconcentrated offices of line ministries.

Figure 1.Government structurein Romania (Author's drawing)Such a government structurecreates a short cut to political

Central level Central government

Prefect

Decentralization

Officies of line ministriesheaded by Directors

Secretary of countryappointed by the Prefect

Deconcentration

Contry level

Local level

Country council

Local council

2) These numbers are in continuous change, new LGU being accepted.3) Larger towns with a number of inhabitants of more than 100,000 and important economic activities4) A list of all laws we were able to identify in relation to the process of decentralization in Romania is in the Annex 2.

11

influence, replacement of office holders any time the government changes and to possible abuse ofpower. The adverse influence of the politics in the actions of the prefect and the political migration ofstaff it caused after the elections was stressed during interviews. See also Freedom House 2004: "Inturn, the local governments would prefer to maintain their political connections and a loose environ-ment, where there are no hard budgetary constraints and everything is negotiable on a case-by-casebasis".

We find the complex system of deconcentration mixed with decentralization to be confusing, atleast before the legislative changes planned for this year. In our opinion the current system wentbeyond the simple requirement for the central government to carry out central functions across coun-try and reflected a struggle to keep power centrally. Even in the draft Amendment of the Law on localpublic administration (215) from 2006 Article 68 still says: "In order to exercise his range of functionsappropriately, the mayor cooperates with the deconcentrated public services of ministries and of otherspecialized bodies of the central government". Also Article 69: "In providing such cooperation, withinthe law the mayor can request the prefect to support the heads of deconcentrated public services ofministries and of other specialized structures of the central public administration within the localauthorities, if the mayor cannot have some functions carried out by his organisation". What "canrequest" means is unclear.

Also, in the amendment of the Law 215:

"It is compulsory that the mayor's orders, the local council's decisions and the county council'sdecisions be communicated to the prefect of the county; as well as .the decisions of the local andcounty council"

"The decisions of the mayor, decisions of the local council, decisions of the county council, as wellas other documents issued or adopted by local government authorities shall be checked by the pre-fect for compliance with the law regulating activity of the local council".

With the Law on Modification and with completion of the Law on the Statute of Civil Servants, thePrefect becomes a high level civil servant. It is expected that the Prefect will be a professional personwith a good education and with an appropriate length of service criteria and thus to break with theadverse effects of the past. Filling any vacant high-ranked public position must be by a national con-test held by a permanent independent commission, composed of seven members who are appointedby decision of the Prime Minister. The members of the commission are appointed by rotation and havea predetermined ten and a half year mandate.

In addition a general performance appraisal of each high level civil servant must be carried outevery 2 years with a view to confirming their professional knowledge and ability to fulfill the require-ments of their position. Each high level civil servant also has the obligation to attend annual profes-sional training courses on the law.

Our conclusion regarding the scope and structure of the government in Romania is that the processof decentralization was driven politically and that it tended to maintain central control. Given the twotier system, the desire for central control created a complex system with mixture of deconcentrationand decentralization at same time. This mixture was particularly noticeable at the county level wherethe Trojan Horse of political appointees to control the local government was provided. The situationwas further complicated by many new villages becoming communes with the resultant increase in the

12

number of LGU. This in turn reduced the possibilities for efficient management and economies of scalein the provision of services.

3. EXPENDITURE ASSIGNMENTS5

The assignment of responsibilities for expenditure to local governments has been included in a largenumber of pieces of legislation. This has made it difficult to obtain clear information on this subject.There is a lack of legislation regulating the organization and operation of local governments that pres-ents in a clear, structured and transparent manner, the assignment of expenditure responsibilities fordelivering local public services at county, commune and town level.

The Ministry of Administration and Interior, within the framework of the public administration reformprocess, has undertaken a general evaluation of the current legal framework applicable in this area.As a result, two documents have been drafted:

Annex 1, "Competences fulfilled by local governments at the county level in providing public serv-ices" and

Annex 2 "Competences fulfilled by local governments at the commune and town level in providingpublic services,"

These two annexes describe in detail the current assignment of expenditure responsibilities to thetwo local government tiers namely the county, and the commune and town. In case of competencesshared by local governments and the central government, the roles of each are described in detail, inorder to avoid any confusion. At the same time, the two documents are an important benchmark relat-ed to administrative and fiscal decentralization conditionality within the PAL 2 Program of the WorldBank.

All ministries and other central public government agencies responsible for regulating areas of localpublic services included in the two annexes were requested to notify the Ministry of Administrationand Interior about any legislative initiative designed to amend the current assignment of expenditureresponsibilities to local governments.

Under the Law on Local Public Utilities (326) "municipal services" include water, wastewater, solidwaste, district heating, local public transport, and maintenance of roads and parks. These services arefrequently provided by enterprises (regie autonomes), which are not budgetary units of the local gov-ernment or by commercial companies. Other LGU services which fall outside the definition of "munic-ipal services" are provided by budgetary units of the local government.

In terms of sustainability, we categorize some municipal services in Table 1:

5) This section benefited from the input of Gabriela Matei, Director of CSPD Romania.

13

Table 1. Municipal Services in terms of Self Sustainability by User Fees

At the time of our study, Law 215 on Local Public Administration was about to be amended andsupplemented by the Framework Law on Decentralization 339 (CEA studied the draft version datedFebruary 2006). The new law is more precise in assigning competencies to the LGU as can be seenfrom the following extract:

"The local public administration authorities exercise, according to the law, exclusive, shared anddelegated competencies:

a) Competence - the right of a local government unit to make decisions in a certain field or regard-ing certain issues, as well as the responsibility associated with this right;

b) Delegated competences - competences assigned by the central government to local govern-ments, by law or contract, together with adequate financial resources, in order to be exercised in thename and within limits established by central government;

c) Exclusive competences - competences assigned by law to local governments and for which theyare fully responsible for implementing. Local governments have the decision-making rights and thenecessary resources and means to fulfill them, in compliance with the norms, criteria, and standardsestablished by the law;

d) Shared competences - the competences exercised by the local governments together with otherlevels of public administration (county or central) with a clear separation of the financing and deci-sion making powers."

Table 2. Framework Law on Decentralization. Competencies at Local and County Level

Self-sustaining basis from user fees Subsidized 100 % from the local budget(no budget support)

! water, ! district heating ! local roads! wastewater, ! local public transport ! parks! solid waste receive

Exclusive Local Exclusive County

a) The management of public and private domainbelonging to the local government;

b) The management of the local road infrastructure;c) The management of local interest cultural institutions;d) The management of local interest public health

institutions;e) Urban planning;f) Water supply;g) Sewage, waste and pluvial water treatment;h) Public illumination;i) Sanitation;j) Primary social assistance services for child

protection and for the elderly;

a) The management of local interest airports;b) The management of public and private domain

belonging to local government (county);c) The management of county interest cultural

institutions;d) The management of county interest public health

institutions;e) Primary and specialized social assistance services

for victims of domestic violence;f) Specialized social assistance services for the elderly;g) Other competences stipulated by law.

14

What remains is that many small communes are not able to provide the services efficiently becauseof the economies of scale (as pointed out during interviews). With such an assignment of expendi-tures, one cannot be sure of true extent of unfunded mandates at the sub-national level in Romania.

In the following tables the size and nature of LGU expenditure in Romania is illustrated.

Table 3. Proportion of Local Public Expenditure from Total Public Expenditure

Source: Budget outlook of Romania provided by one of the interviewee.

k) Primary and specialized social assistance servicesfor the victims of domestic violence;

l) Local public transportation;m) Other competences stipulated by law.

Shared Local with Central

a) District heating supply; b) The building of social houses as well as houses

for the youth;c) State pre-university education, excepting special

education;d) Public order and safety; e) The payment of the social benefits for people in need;f) The prevention and management of emergency

situations at local level;g) Socio-medical assistance services for the persons

with social problems;h) Primary social assistance services for disabled

persons;i) Community public services for personal data records;j) The maintenance of the local road infrastructure

of local interest at the level of communes;k) Other competences stipulated by law.

The local governments at the level of communes and towns exercise shared competences with local governmentat the county level regarding water supply if regional operators are set up, as well as other competences stipulat-ed by law.

Local governments exercise delegated competences by the central government regarding the payment of financialrights for disabled children and adults.

Source: Author's adoption from the Draft Framework Law from February 2006.

Shared County with Central

a) The management of the county road infrastructure;b) Special education;c) Socio-medical assistance services for the persons

with social problems;d) Primary and specialized social assistance services

for child protection;e) Specialized social assistance services for disabled

persons; f) Community public services for personal data

records;g) Other competences stipulated by law.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

10.4 11.0 11.7 18.1 18.4 19.2

15

Table 4. Romanian County Expenditure as % of GDP

Source: Martinez 2005

Table 5. Wages and Salaries as % of Total Expenditure

Source: Adapted by author. Original Martinez 2005.

Table 6. Capital Expenditures as % of Total Expenditure

Source: Adapted by author. Original Martinez 2005.

The figures in the tables above, at the very least, add substance to the general claim in Romaniathat the current level of fragmentation at local level has a cost in terms of the loss of economies ofscale (see Martinez 2005). The local public expenditures as a percentage of the total expendituresincreased from 10.4% in 1998 to 19.2% in 2003 but a large part goes in wages and salaries. The per-centage of wages and salaries of total expenditures is higher in the lower the tier of the government.This could be an indication of greater inefficiencies as the unit of government becomes smaller. In con-trast, the following comments were also made by CSPD about the development of the expendituresystem at LGU level:

! As a whole, LGU expenditures followed the trend of mandate transfer, also reflected by their evolu-tion in the GDP throughout 1999 - 2004. New responsibilities were transferred to the LGU, thusincreasing the share of local budgets in relation to the GDP and total expenditure in the public sec-tor. These new mandates were especially in the fields of education and social welfare. Unfortunate-ly, the new mandates were not always transferred together with the relevant sources of funding;

! Analysis of LGU expenditures by category of councils (county, city, town, and commune) showsa major difference between urban and rural communities. In the case of county and city councilsa larger proportion is expended on public service or capital improvement, whereas in the case oftown and rural councils a larger proportion is expended on operational and staff costs;

2001 2002 2003 2004

6.1 6.1 6.8 6.5

Of which: capital expenditures 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7

Of which: wages and salaries 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.5

2001 2002 2003 2004

County council 21.5 19.1 17.2 16.5

Municipalities 40.9 39.2 34.8 38.2

Towns 53.4 50.1 46.5 50.1

Villages 64.4 57.1 51.7 54.2

2001 2002 2003 2004

County council 16.8 15.8 14.9 8.7

Municipalities 14.0 13.6 14.4 12.1

Towns 10.8 11.9 13.3 12.1

Villages 8.2 7.6 10.5 8.8

16

! As the size of LGU decreases, there is a clear trend of higher staff and social welfare expendi-ture, to the detriment of public services and capital improvement. This trend raises seriousdoubts over the capacity of LGUs, especially in rural areas, to upgrade their infrastructure;

! Arrears are difficult to assess because of the cash accounting system used. EmergencyOrdinance 45/2003 introduced the first elements of accrual accounting, but this will really onlystart to show up in the 2006 reports.

4. STRUCTURE OF THE REVENUES

The Law on Local Taxes and Charges has no limitations on the number or level of taxes and chargesthat local authorities can establish. These can be set depending on the local needs and the localauthority's institutional capacity.

Own source revenues

The most important own source revenues at LGU in Romania are the revenues from ownership ofproperty. For buildings owned by physical persons, the tax is determined on the basis of a uniformnationwide schedule based on the floor area of the building. The tax is also partially based on theapproximate the value of the building which is estimated on the basis of several factors such as the ageof the building, location, type of construction, etc. Thus the LGU has no authority to set the rates of thistax on any building owned by a physical person. In the case of a physical person, the uniform rate is0.2 percent for buildings located in urban areas and 0.1 percent for those located in rural areas. The lo-cal councils are entitled to grant exemptions to payment of this tax. The law provides for progressivelyhigher tax burdens to be placed on physical persons who own more than one building in the country.

For buildings owned by legal persons, the value of a building is its book value as determined fromthe accounting records of the company. It is interesting that in this case a local council has the discre-tion to set the rate between 0.5% and 1 % of the book value of the building. The tax on buildings is paidin four installments but with an option of a single payment before March 15 which brings a discount.

Table 7. Evolution of Own Revenues as % of Total Revenues 1999-2003

Source: IPP 2005.

The decrease in the share of own revenues as a percentage of total revenues happened because ofthe transfer of new responsibilities and the allocation certain grants by the central government.

Table 8. Percentage of Own Revenues

Source: Swianiewicz 2004 and Martinez 2006.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

County 37.1 26.5 20.3 18.3 8.5

Municipalities 52.9 44.2 25.6 26.8 28.6

Towns 44.6 41.4 21.4 22.7 25.0

Communes 41 36.7 16.4 16.1 16.6

2001 2002 2003 2004

% as of GDP 6.1 6.2 6.9 6.7

17

Assessing the real value of property for purpose of local taxation is a demanding task. Romania isno exception even though there is a system which tries to keep up with different types of existing build-ings having regard to zones, year of construction and multiple ownership of buildings. Another chal-lenge is the budgeting of the LGU envelope given the assumption of all property taxes will be collectedin the following fiscal year but this never happens. This creates a systematic error in the amount of thebudget revenues of the LGU in Romania actually collected. This could be interesting topic to explore ingreater depth especially in connection with efficient tax administration and credit rating of the LGU.

Shared revenues

Quotas from the Personal Income Tax (PIT) are distributed to LGU in accordance with the Law onLocal Public Finances-LPF but the percentages may change from year to year with the State BudgetLaw. Because of the introduction of a flat rate tax, and an expected decrease in rate of collection, in2005 the government increased the overall revenue sharing rate to 82 % of tax collected in compari-son with 63 % in 2004. The 82 % PIT is distributed as:

! 47 % to the local level where the tax is collected;! 13 % to the county level where the LGU is located;! 22 % to the county authorities for equalizing the local budgets of the communes, towns, munici-

pal towns and county (county 25 % of those 22 % points) and for further distribution to local level(75 % of those 22 % points).

The share of the PIT in the Bucharest Municipal City is distributed as follows: 23.5% to the localbudgets of the sectors of Bucharest, 47.5% to the own budget of Bucharest municipal city and 11%to the General Council of Bucharest Municipal City in order to equalize the local budgets of the sec-tors and Bucharest Municipal City

Table 9. Structure of Revenues

Source: Martinez 2005.

What is interesting is that the own revenues are low compared to the shared revenues thus illus-trating the dependence of the LGU on the central level government. LGU also fail to show efficiency inadministering own revenues and any improvement the collection rate (see more in Martinez 2005).

Capital revenues

Capital transfers are generated by sale of assets belonging to LGU. These are of an exceptionalnature and provide only a small fraction of the total local revenues.

5. INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS

The PIT and VAT transfers, as prescribed in the Emergency Ordinance on the LPF 45 from 2003,are earmarked to subsidise the price of heating, salaries of teachers and social welfare and a partwhich is non-earmarked for the purpose of equalization.

2001 2002 2003

Own revenues 21.7 22.0 20.9

Shared revenues PIT and VAT 71.5 76.1 71.7

18

Earmarked transfers

A large part of the earmarked transfers goes for salaries of teachers (typically around 30 % of totallocal revenues). The Central Government also contributes to international projects by financing ofactivities and services representing medium and long term investments at local level.

Equalization fund

In the LPF, financial equalization is defined as transfer of financial resources from some incomes inthe state budget to administrative-territorial units in order to ensure the necessary funds for the sup-ply of public services, according to the law. The Law regulates the transfer between different levels ofgovernment, the role of the equalization fund and LGU borrowing. It also prescribes a mathematicalformula to assess the financial capacity of the LGU so that the equalization fund can be distributedmore efficiently.

The Equalization Fund is first allocated from the national to the county level and then from the coun-ty to the local level. The first allocation to the county level is in accordance with a formula with vari-ables including the county fiscal capacity and the county land area. The second allocation to the locallevel is in accordance with a formula with variables again including the fiscal capacity and the landarea but in this case also the population.

Our main conclusion from the interviews and the material presented to explain the equalizati-on/transfer system is that the system is too complicated and that it has the spirit of "double counting"even though the inclusion of all the formulas gives the first impression of a very transparent system.It is not very clear why there is a need to transfer a fraction directly from the central to the local leveland then another fraction to the same local level but this time via the county. Also, the power of cen-tral government to announce changes in the share and pooling of funds creates an uncertainty in therevenue flow at LGU level. Another issue may be the "quality" of the equalization system (the fiscalcapacity, fiscal needs, fiscal effort, variability of poverty etc.) but this is beyond our scope of work.Interesting research in this area is the IPP 2005.

The following comments were also given by CSPD for the development of the revenue system atLGU level in Romania:

! The total revenues to the local budgets increased significantly in the period 1999-2003;! The percentage of local taxes and fees and shared amounts of PIT from the total LGU budgets

decreased, while various transfers from the state budgets increased, especially earmarkedgrants, and to a lesser extent the equalization grants;

! The financial autonomy of LGU to establish policies based on local taxes and fees decreased, bya gradual but obvious limitation of the LGU variation margins in setting these taxes and fees;

! There are large gaps between the general purpose revenues before equalization, especiallybetween cities (mostly county seats) and communes. This situation is apparent if we discusspublic services delivery, with big differences in volume and diversity between urban and ruralareas.

! Equalization grants are mostly directed to communes (because they have low own revenues dueto economic underdevelopment) and to county councils due to the gap between the mandatestransferred to them (especially in social welfare) and the available financial resources (local taxesand fees and the amount from PIT which is shared out).

19

! As for establishing, tracking, collecting and controlling these revenues, the principle of localautonomy (transfer of the competence for levying these taxes and fees to the LGU) has led to asignificant increase in collection of revenue.

6. BORROWING PILLAR OF DECENTRALIZATION IN ROMANIA

In accordance with the LPF, the local public administration's authorities have the following compe-tencies and responsibilities for local public finances:

! Direct contracting of domestic and external loans, in the short, medium and long terms and pur-suit on maturity of the payment obligations that arise;

! Guaranteeing of domestic and external loans, in the short, medium and long terms and pursuiton maturity of the obligations for payment arising from the respective loans.

The local public authorities can contract or guarantee loans only with the approval of the Commi-ssion6 for Authorization of Local Loans (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). The local andcounty councils and the General Council of Bucharest Municipal City can decide to contract or to guar-antee loans with the vote of at least half plus one of the counselors. The mayor or the president of thecounty, as the executive body, is responsible for the implementation of this decision.

The LPF stipulates the two instruments for borrowing that an LGU can use as being bonds andloans taken from commercial banks. It also stipulates the purpose of borrowing as financing local pub-lic investment or refinancing of the local public debt. It limits the debt destination at LGU level to infra-structure projects in the public sector and/or of public purpose.

The LPF does not allow the total annual debt which is represented by the contracted loans, bonds,financial leasing and LGU collaterals to exceed 30 % of the total current revenues in the budget of anyLGU. The debt service ratio is calculated as the annual debt over the total own revenues, including PITshares. This has been interpreted to mean that the debt service installments due in any single yearshould not exceed 30% of the total own revenues of the local budget.

The LPF also allows for a temporary short term financing of cash deficits from the Treasury.Starting with 2006, LGU are allowed to hold commercial banks accounts to administrate contractedloans. LGU funds in the Treasury do not yield interest.

External borrowing

LGU must have approval of the Commission if the maximum amount allowed (periodically updat-ed) is to be exceeded. Under special circumstances, the Ministry of Public Finances-MPF can guar-antee an external loan contracted by a LGU and in that case will supervise the contract procedure andthe repayment of the loan.

Internal borrowing

The local or the county council that decided to contract a loan or a bond issue must present all doc-uments regarding the loan to the Commission. Internal borrowing can be contracted and managed bylocal authorities without any support from the central government once it is approved by theCommission.

6) The Commission consists of representatives from LGU administration, central government and National Bank of Romania. The Commissionmeets monthly and analyses all requests coming from LGU, to confirm compliance with the law. More about the Commission, in the sectionon: Approval, monitoring and disclosure.

20

For short term borrowing, the cash flow deficit must not exceed 5 % of the LGU budgeted revenuesincluding taxes, fees, contributions, other income and the allocated share from income tax. When tem-porary cash deficits occur, these can be covered by loans granted by the MPF from the general cur-rent account of the Treasury. The reimbursement of funds borrowed under the provisions of this arti-cle is guaranteed by the estimated income for the relevant budgetary year. In case the loan is not reim-bursed by 31st of December, the MPF is authorized to execute the account of the respective adminis-trative-territorial unit.

Guarantees

In accordance with the LPF, a local guarantee is an engagement assumed by a local public author-ity to pay at maturity any non-honored obligations of an economic operator or public services subor-dinate to them for which the public authority acts as guarantor.

The LGU must guarantee any contracted loan with its own revenues or it can use intercepts of inter-governmental transfers or use its reserve funds. Intercepts can provide a strong boost to credit mar-ket development without any implied central government guarantee or other cost to the Treasury. Assuch they merit particular consideration in the development of municipal credit policy and law.

In general, the following types of pledge can be used to provide a guarantee:! Pledge of physical or monetary assets;! Pledge of the right to operate a facility or provide a service;! Pledge of selected revenues, such as:! tariffs, fares, or rentals;! particular taxes or special levies;! grants or shared taxes (intergovernmental transfers).! Pledge of the power to set specific tax rates, utility tariffs, and other levies;! Pledge by the executive to budget for and recommend payment of future debt service, without

an explicit binding pledge that those appropriations will be made;! Pledge to assign the payment of future intergovernmental revenue.

In the case of Romania the "special purpose transfers from the state budget" may not be pledgedfor the payment of municipal debt. The LPF authorizes municipalities to pledge other transfers fromthe central government e.g. quota and other amounts derived from particular incomes from the statebudget and their "own source revenues". This is a positive reflection of autonomous control over suchfunds.

Almost half of all municipal bonds issued are insured by private insurance companies for timelypayment of debt service. Unlike free government guarantees, private insurance does not create anyincentive for inefficiency. A premium is paid for guaranty coverage because the guarantors have spe-cialized staffs that assess the risks of municipal finances or project financing thus, the greater the riskthe greater the premium charged to obtain the guaranty. Note that this is not a substitute for munici-pal creditworthiness as the guarantor will only guarantee debt of municipalities that it has deemed tobe creditworthy (see more in USAID LGAP 2002).

Characteristics of debt

According to the definitions in Art. 2 points 3 and 4, and the provisions of Art. 3 (3) of Law No.313/2004, financial market loans raised or guaranteed by local public administration authorities are

21

part of Romania's public debt, though not representing Government liabilities. Such loan-related pub-lic debt is serviced either by local budgets or by refinance loans.

The instruments of local public debt are:! Bonds;! Loans from commercial banks or other credit institutions;! Supplier credits;! Financial leasing;! Local guarantee;

The issuing and launching of titles of value on the market can be done directly by the local publicauthorities or through agents or other specialized institutions.

The central government retains a legitimate interest in the integrity of municipal budgeting andfinancial management. One interest is to ensure that municipalities provide the basic public servicesexpected of them, before they invest in non-core activities. A second interest is to ensure that munic-ipalities prepare and execute balanced operating budgets.

In respect to the overseeing of municipal credit, the central government has two critical concernsin ensuring compliance with legally mandated procedures. One concern is to limit the consolidatedpublic sector's outstanding debt to comply with international benchmarks and thus to preserve thegovernment's ability to borrow abroad in order to build a solid base for the national economy andfuture participation in the European Union. The second concern is to guard against imprudent borrow-ing that could threaten the integrity of the overall public finance system and so to put pressure on thenational government to deliver costly bailouts.

i. Maturity

The maturity of a debt instrument should be no longer than and matched to the economic life of theasset it is financing. Ideally, amortizing the liability on one side of the balance sheet is matched by thedepreciation of the asset financed on the other. In Romania short term loans used to cover possibleliquidity issues are under the competency of the State Treasury.

ii. Interest

Although the provisions of the LPF do not expressly authorize debt which bears interest, the provi-sions imply that such debt may be issued. The bank regulations and the contractual provisions of anyloan prevail.

iii. Debt Service

The debt limitation formula is an incentive for structuring substantially equal debt service install-ments and thus to avoid the dangers of deferring larger or balloon installments of principal to the endof the loan term.

iv. Foreign Currency

As a rule, municipalities should be discouraged from assuming foreign currency risk. The LPF pro-vides that debt denominated in a foreign currency is subject to the approval of the Commission.

22

Additionally, Annex 1 to Government Decision 978, October 4, 2001(II) requires approval by theCommission of municipal guaranties of loans denominated in foreign currency.

The MPF report on government domestic debt in Romania from February 2006 says: "the increaseof domestic public government debt is made under a strict observance of the ceiling of domestic pub-lic indebtedness, approved by Parliament. Thus for 2006 a domestic public indebtedness ceiling ofRON 9.600 million was approved. The domestic credits contracted directly or guaranteed by the stateand local authorities represented 0.25% of this ceiling at the end of February 2006".

In Romania at the end of February 2006, the outstanding domestic credits guaranteed by the stateamounts RON 2,139 million. The debt contracted by local authorities under state guarantee to financeinvestment projects under the SAPARD program amounts RON 87.2 million which is 4 % of the out-standing domestic credits guaranteed by the state.

Approval, monitoring and disclosure

The Commission7 has been established by Governmental Decision No. 158 of March 3, 2005 (OGNo. 220/March 16, 2005) to consider and advise local public administration authorities on borrowingand issuance of loan guarantees. The Commission consists of nine members, of which four are MPFrepresentatives, including the Commission Chair, two are Ministry of Administration and Interior rep-resentatives, and three are representatives of the local public administration associative structures.The Commission reviews, based on the documentation provided by applicant:

! the loan amount to evaluate compliance with Romania's annual public indebtedness ceiling;! the timing of any securities issue in relation to the schedule of MPF issues in order to avoid

unnecessary competition in attracting capital market loans;

By the 15th of every month, local government borrowers, including the guarantor administrativeunits, must report on the status of outstanding borrowing for the previous month. Such reports mustbe structured as required by MPF-developed norms. Norms and procedures for authorizing local gov-ernment borrowing or loan guaranteeing are illustrated in the Annex 4.

Borrowings and guarantees by a local public administration authority must be entered in the localpublic debt register and local government guarantee register, as applicable, of the respective authority.

In accordance with the LPF, the Local Public Debt Register (LPDR) is an official paper which pres-ents, in chronological order, the position of the directly contracted local public debt. The LPDR has twocomponents namely the sub-register of the local domestic public debt and the sub-register of the localexternal public debt. The LPDR will include information which specifies the total sum of debt of thelocal authorities, together with details of the debts and other information concerning the LPDR requiredby the methodological norms issued by the MPF. The total value of guarantees issued by the localauthority is written in the registry of local guarantees of this authority and it is reported annually in itsfinancial statements.

In accordance with the LPF a Local Guarantees Register (LGR) is an official paper which presents,in chronological order, the position of the local guarantees granted by the local authorities. The LGRhas two components namely the sub-register of the local domestic guarantees and the sub-register ofthe local external guarantees. The LGR will include information which specifies the total sum of guar-antees of the local authorities, together with details of the guarantees and other information concern-ing the LGR required by the methodological norms issued by the MPF.

7) Before that there was a Commission but only for external borrowing authorization.

23

Financial distress and insolvency

Before the amendments to the LPF were adopted, the law provided that, in the event of default inthe payment of short-term debt or a violation of the limit in the amount of short-term debt that maybe issued, the Court of Accounts must request the municipality to submit a recovery plan. The LPFcontains a chapter (Chapter VI, articles 74 and 75) on financial distress and insolvency of LGU. A spe-cial law for implementation of these provisions is being drafted. Starting with 2007, situations of fis-cal distress and insolvency in LGUs will be regulated and observed more thoroughly.

In the LPF there is a list of definitions which includes a definition of insolvency but not of financialdistress. However later in the text financial distress is defined as non-payment of liquid and matureddebts, older than 90 days, registered at the end of a quarter of the financial year, and which exceed30% of the total budget of that quarter. The definition also includes non-payment of salaries as fore-seen in the budget of income and expenditure for a period longer than 90 days.

In accordance with the LPF, the definition of insolvency is: "A situation in which a debtor finds himself when his goods have a lower value than the totality of

his obligations that need to be satisfied with those goods"

Our comment on this definition of insolvency is that not only goods can satisfy the liabilities butalso the expected future proceeds of these goods and because solvency should be defined in net pres-ent value terms.

The syndic judge, through the decision to opening an insolvency procedure, will appoint an admin-istrator who undertakes all prerogatives of the main credit release authority of the administrative terri-torial unit which is the subject of the insolvency. Within 30 working days from the administratorappointment, he/she elaborates, together with the territorial structure of the Audit Court, a Plan ofInsolvency Recovery.

If the insolvency is found to have ceased, the syndic judge, at the administrator's proposal, will pro-nounce the closure of the insolvency proceedings in the administrative- territorial unit. The adminis-trative-territorial unit remains in the financial crisis situation, while the main credit release authority andthe local council regain their prerogatives and start applying the Plan of Financial Recovery in order torelease the administrative- territorial unit from its financial crisis situation.

The opening and closing of the insolvency proceedings are registered by the main credit releaseauthority within 5 days from declaration of the insolvency. The registration is made in the LocalRegister of the Administrative-territorial Unit which is administered by the general directorates of pub-lic finances of the counties and by the Bucharest Municipal City in the case of Bucharest. The open-ing and closing of insolvency procedures must be communicated monthly to the MPF in order torecord them in the National Register of Insolvency for the administrative- territorial units.

In a financial crisis, the main credit release authority has to draw up the Plan of Financial Recovery.The plan will be elaborated by the main credit release authority, together with the general directorateof public finances of the county or of the Bucharest Municipal City and the territorial bodies of the AuditCourt, within 30 days from the day the financial crisis is declared by the deliberative authority. Thecontrol of executing and fulfilling the measures set out in the Plan of Financial Recovery lies with theterritorial structures of the Audit Court.

24

Table 10. Characteristics of Financial Distress and Insolvency at LGU Level

Insolvency is a situation in which a debtor findshimself when his own goods have a lower value

Financial distress than the totality of his obligations thatshould be satisfied with those goods

Conditions

! non-payment of liquid and matured debts, older than90 days, registered at the end of a quarter of thefinancial year and which exceed 30% of the totalbudget of that quarter;

! non-payment of salaries, foreseen in the budgetof income and expenditure for a period longer than90 days.

Initiation

Declaration by the deliberative authority

Plan

The main credit release authority to draw up the Planof Financial Recovery.

The control of executing and fulfilling the measuresset out in the Plan of Financial Recovery lies with theterritorial structures of the Audit Court.

The Plan includes:! economic-financial analysis of the

administrative-territorial unit! measures for maintaining the essential public

services by the local public administration'sauthorities throughout the period for which thePlan of Financial Recovery is in force;

If the LGU is unable to pay the matured debts exceed-ing 50% of its budget for a period of 120 consecutivedays

Any creditor or group of creditors having one or moretrue, liquid and matured debts to be claimed from anadministrative-territorial unit, with a value above 50%of its budget, for a period of 120 consecutive days,can file, with the Court of Law in the territory in whichthe unit is located, an application for the opening ofproceedings of insolvency against that administrative-territorial unit.

The administrator will administrate the insolvencyrecovering procedure of the administrative-territorialunit.

The Plan includes:! measures for re-establishing the financial viability of

the administrative- territorial unit;! measures for further fulfilling the essential services of

the administrative- territorial unit throughout its insol-vency;

! negotiated measures and the schedule for paying thedebts to the creditors in order of the debt seniority.

25

7. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES

In Romania there is a single Treasury system, so that, in principle, the government knows at alltimes the aggregate amount of resources available in the Treasury. This means that, although individ-ual local governments maintain records of their own finances, their accounts are actually under thecontrol of the central government (local governments can hold accounts in commercial banks for theEU grants received for infrastructure/development projects). This can constrain local fiscal flexibility.The Audit Court at the central level is responsible for control of local community's expenditures.

Public institutions are obliged to transmit their budget to the territorial unit of the Treasury. The exec-utive authorities and the presidents of the county councils are obliged to publish on the Internet siteof the public institutions and/ or to post in a public place the budget draft, the approved budget, thebudget execution, its development, the budget rectification and final accounts. This information mustbe updated at least once a quarter.

In accordance with the LPF, the main credit release authorities of the local budgets shall draw up,annually, a public investment program, in accordance with the functional classification and to includeboth financial and non financial information.

The financial information must include the total value of the project, engagement credits, budgetcredits, the financing graph by source and by year correlated with the execution graph, the cost-ben-efit analysis and the operating and maintenance costs after commissioning.

In Romania, the LPF introduces a solidarity principle as: "by means of local budgetary policies,administrative-territorial units and physical persons found to bet in extremely difficult situations can beassisted by allocating sums from the reserve fund constituted within the local budget".

The budgetary reserve fund at the disposal of the local and county councils comprises 5% of the totalexpenditure. The reserve fund is used on the proposal of the main credit release authority, based on adecision of the council, to finance certain urgent or unexpected costs that come up during the budget-ary year. The reserve fund can also be used for the removal of the effects of certain natural calamitiesand for granting assistance to the administrative- territorial units in cases of extreme difficulty.

In accordance with the LPF, in order to cover the financial risks deriving from the guarantee assuredby the administrative-territorial unit for the loans contracted by the economic operators and the pub-lic services found in local subordination, a risk fund is constituted separate from the local budget. Therisk fund is kept a separate account, opened at the territorial units of the Treasury to provide for localguarantees to domestic loans and for guarantees to external loans.

The most transparent means of financial management at local level is to separate the capital budg-et from the current budget. The current budget's surpluses can be used to repay loans used for invest-ment i.e. for capital needs. In accordance with the LPF the Operational Section is a compulsory mainpart of a local budget which comprises the income for covering the current expenditure needed tocarry out the duties and competencies established by the law and to cover the current expenses;

! measures for increasing the realisation of own income, as well as for attracting other income;

! measures for decrease in expenditure;! economic-financial and budgetary planning until

recovery;! establishing the tasks for fulfilling the provisions with-

in the Plan of Financial Recovery

26

Development section is a complementary part of a local budget which comprises the income forcovering capital expenditure. Capital expenditure will be in accordance with the established develop-ment policies, at national, county, zone or local level and be based on programs and projects. The zonelevel means the territory of two or more neighboring administrative-territorial units on which an actionor a program has been agreed by the local communities. These articles from the LPF are not yet imple-mented, and are not clearly defined. They will be enacted in 2008, when methodological norms willbe issued.

The programmatic budgeting is prescribed thus moving toward performance budgeting as opposedto the input based budgeting. In accordance with the LPF, a Program is an activity or a coherentassembly of activities that refer to the same main credit release authority which has been designatedto achieve an objective or a defined set of objectives and for which there are established program indi-cators for evaluating the results to be obtained, within the limits of the approved financing.

Following the commitment of the Government in 2001 to move from cash to accrual accounting(as per the Strategic development plan for public financial management Reform 2005-2007):

! A strategy for the move to accrual accounting was developed for SAPARD8 and ISPA funds toprovide working models based on the accrual accounting principles;

! Cash methodology is being developed for PHARE transactions together with norms for account-ing on an accrual basis that need to be approved by the Ministry;

! New accounting methodology based on accrual has been developed to apply to all public enti-ties at central, regional and local government level. The reporting system became operational inJanuary 2006. Communes now have double entry accounting systems which also started inJanuary 2006.

8. BONDS

In accordance with the LPF, bonds are defined as titles of credit, on the middle and long term,issued on the authority of a local public administration, with reimbursement guaranteed by the incomeof the administrative-territorial units, and goods belonging to the private property of the administrative-territorial units.

In 1998 the USAID funded project managed by the Urban Institute, made a training needs assess-ment for the banks in Romania. They collected information from the five largest banks that haveexpressed an interest in lending to municipalities and regii. These banks included Bancorex, RomanianCommercial Bank, Romanian Development Bank, Bancoop, and Savings Bank.

Since then, two Romanian banks, the Romanian Commercial Bank and the Romanian DevelopmentBank have been the underwriters to most of the LGU bonds issued in Romania. Major investors havebeen the banks, investment funds, companies and insurance companies. Pension funds are notinvolved in investment so far. At first it was the LGU that initiated the issuance of bonds although laterthe banks have also become initiators.

8) Three pre-accession instruments have been financed by the European Community to assist the applicant countries of Central and EasternEurope with their pre-accession preparations: - Phare program that provides support for institution building, investment to strengthen the regulatory infrastructure needed to ensure compli-ance with the acquis communautaire and investment in economic and social cohesion,- SAPARD, which provides aid for agricultural and rural development; and - ISPA, which finances infrastructure projects in the fields of environment and transport.

27

The LGU worked with independent consulting companies that assisted in:1. Analyzing the indebtedness capacity of the LGU and recommending the amount of money that

can be borrowed;2. Analyzing other alternatives such as treasury bonds, credits, external borrowing;3. Suggesting the optimal timing for bond issuance, the nominal value of the bonds and the

maturity rate;4. Negotiating the interest rate;5. Estimating the macroeconomic trends and interest rates in the capital market;6. Analyzing the budgetary flow of LGU and making mid term forecasts.

According to the Urban Institute report of 1998, apart from the perceived wisdom that the issuanceof bonds is more complicated than contracting a loan, in Romania the bond market is considered tobe less politicized and more transparent than the bank market. In fact the procedure for issuing bondsis less complicated than getting a bank loan and the interest rate in the capital market has been lowerthan in the banking sector. However, the LGU loan market has become a competitive one and LGU nowprefer loans to bonds. Some consulting agencies have become involved in offering consulting servic-es related to LGU borrowing. The interest rate on a loan is calculated based on the BUBOR which isthe rate at which the banks in Romania borrow among themselves. The margin between the intereston a loan and BUBOR is in the range 0.5 % to 2 % per annum. The banks also charge a facility com-mission of not more than 1 % and an administration fee of 0.01 % of the outstanding loan. The bankcharges a commission in case of reimbursement ahead of schedule.

In case of issuing bonds, there are additional costs for the external consultant, the stock exchangeetc. These additional bond costs are outside the 25 % debt limit (only the coupon and the final pay-ment are included in the 25 % debt limit). The Romanian Commercial Bank

In Romania in the event of a default on a municipal bond issue, the present law leaves bondhold-ers to pursue remedies on individual basis since the legal framework does not permit bondholders toact in an organized and effective manner to enforce their rights, and to create a contractually basedrole of bondholder representative. The legal framework in future should permit bondholders to act inan organized and effective manner to enforce their rights.

The first municipal bonds were issued in 2001 and from the very beginning the LGU found financ-ing through bond issues attractive. In the first year 7% of new domestic debt was in the form of bonds(two issues). In 2002, the proportion of bond issues increased to 35% (eight issues). In 2006 Bucha-rest issued bonds denominated in Euro.

Table 11. The Profile of Romanian Municipal Bond Features, 2004

Source: CSPD from MPF, CNVM.

Number 9 issues at year end 2004

Value Average: ROL 39.68 billion, or about $1.42 million

Range: ROL 5 billion-ROL 150 billion, or $0.17-$5.34 million

Maturities Generally two to three years, although Deva has 4+years, and Oradea has 6+years

Fees Range: ROL 100,000-ROL 2 million, or $3-$60

Coupons Range: four to 12

Rates Generally [(BUBID+BUBOR)/2]+1% -3 %.

Most rates are set on a trimester basis.

28

According to Fitch, in the period 1999-2002, local public debt increased from 35% to 38% of totalpublic debt and has stabilized at about 11% of GDP. The main overseas lenders to Romania are theEBRD and the EIB while in the domestic market the principal players are Banca Comerciala Romana,Banca Romana de Dezvoltare and BankPost. In 2002 local branches of international commercial banks(such as ABN AMRO and Raiffeisen Bank) were also becoming active providers of funding toRomanian municipalities. In view of the latest regulations, which permit municipalities to openaccounts in commercial banks for loan transactions, the number of lenders is expected to increase.

For loans other than those from the Treasury, LGU were permitted to open accounts with commer-cial banks since 1 January 2004. This is a positive development since establishes a bank-client rela-tionship between banks and municipalities, with the banking sector becoming more familiar with thefinancial affairs of LGU.

9. CONCLUSION

After the initial early start to the process of decentralization with the drafting the Law on LocalPublic Administration and the Law on Local Elections in 1991 in Romania, the process has been slowwith heavy central government and political influence rather than rapid decentralization. It took a cou-ple of years to institutionalize local autonomy by means of the Law on Local Taxes and Charges 1994and the European Charter which was ratified in 1997.

New changes in legislation took place in 2006 but have yet to be implemented. There are highexpectations for transparency, professionalism and less political voluntarism. The main difficulty withthe institutional framework has been its changeability, arising from the high number of regulationsaffecting it and the frequency with which legislation has been amended, replaced or abolished. Anotherissue has been the limited involvement of local government officials in the legislative process, espe-cially in decisions over revenue and expenditure. With the changes in the Law 215 this should bechanged and the LGU should be consulted in a timely manner about any change in legislation.

It seems that the problems related to the decentralization process in Romania are well identified andthe changes in the legislation in 2006 are considered to be a major step forward. These changesinclude the adoption of the Framework Law on Decentralization, the new LPF and Law 215.Implementation has yet to begin and so the benefits cannot yet be assessed.

With the Framework Law on Decentralization, the competencies are now clearly assigned to localand county level. However, the inefficiency in providing services as a consequence of the fragmentedterritorial structure remains a problem especially for the smaller LGU. There is the lack of strong rela-tionship with the business community for many reasons such as the low rate of return of projects, thepresence of subsidies and political sensitivity. Strengthening this relationship with its different instru-ments (PPP for example) might improve the situation by ensuring more efficient spending of publicmoney in providing services.

There was an attempt at recentralization during the period of 2001 to 2004 in terms of control andintervention at local level from the central level. There was confusion in sharing responsibilities espe-cially in the health and social sectors. The result was a lower level of investment and underdevelop-ment of the borrowing market at LGU level because of lower demand for capital caused by uncertain-ty. At LGU level, property rights and ownership are not yet clear.

29

The LGU revenue system experiences systematic error. The deferred payments not collected in theprevious fiscal year are actually counted as planned revenues for the next fiscal year. Another prob-lem is the dependency on central government transfers mostly due to low efficiency in administeringown revenues and a failure to improve the collection rate although since the LGU have become respon-sible for collection, the rate has increased to about 80%-85%.

The intergovernmental transfer, even though in one respect transparent (formulas in the legislation anddetailed explanations), remains complicated and creates uncertainty due to possible changes in percent-ages each year by the central government. This creates difficulties in fiscal planning for the lower levelgovernments. Allocation of equalization funds often becomes a political negotiation rather than the resultof a transparent effort to differentiate between local needs. During development of the equalization sys-tem the WB wanted to remove the counties from the system of redistribution as they are exercising toomany discretionary rights. The WB preferred a central level system in accordance with a formula but theRomanian government wanted to retain the system. The compromise reached was to use devolved unitsi.e. the Prefects. Further discussion with the WB related this issue is envisaged for 2007.

As for borrowing, best practice is followed in relation to the definition of borrowing, debt limits andinstitutions. The debt limitation was increased to 30 % from 20% with the Emergency Ordinance 425 ofown revenues. A "Financial Crisis" is clearly distinguished from "Insolvency", there are insolvency pro-cedures prescribed in the LPF and what now remains is to see how the legislation will work in practice.

In relation to the guarantees from own revenues of LGU, the WB would like to resolve the situationconcerning shared revenues. The definition of PIT is unclear as to whether it is a shared or an ownrevenue and this creates confusion.9 There is a twinning program of the EU to prepare a separate Lawon Public Debt and the LGU which will deal with LGU insolvency rather than this issue simply being apart of the LPF. It is WB opinion that in case of insolvency, the Treasury should not give loans becauseof the moral hazard (classical bail out). In contrast domestic experts think that these loans are the lastresort to fix possible problems and should remain.

Starting in 1999 and after 7 years of practice the system of borrowing at LGU level has developedsignificantly with loans and bonds being issued. There still are some issues to be resolved such aspermitting bondholders to act in an organized and effective manner to enforce their rights. The loanswere mainly used for infrastructure projects (water, sewage, roads, land fields etc)

Before 1998, 17 loans were provided by the EBRD mostly for water rehabilitation. These loans hadgovernment guarantees (60 % from the EBRD, 20 % from the county council and 20 % from the cen-tral government). LGU borrowing was allowed in 1999 but the banking sector lacked knowledge ofLGU finances, the LGU didn't have accounts at the banks, the legal system was unpredictable andchanging and the collateral system was weak. Municipal services loans are provided from the WB tothe MPF in Romania. It is interesting that the WB now is preparing a policy note on LGU Financing. Itshould cover the topics of: decentralization, LGU financing processes and EU funds, access of LGUto the banks, financial market structure etc.

The bank's loan market started to be operational in 2001. It started from a low base and hasincreased about 400 fold by 2005. The proportion of capital investment financed from borrowing is

9) The unclear definition of PIT is very similar to the Macedonian situation described in the Macedonian country report.

30

about 85 % and mostly in public services. There is no borrowing experience for operational spending.Also, 10 banks signed a memorandum of interest with the Ministry of Administration and Interior tolend to the LGU. The largest Romanian bank (25 % of the total banking sector assets) is also thelargest investor in the LGU loan market. The final result of these developments is lower spread in inter-est charged. The purpose of the loans was to provide services in water supply and transportation.Maturities varied from 1 to 10 years with variable interest rates.

In case of taking a loan from a bank, an LGU has to organize a tender and to have at least 5 banksmaking offers with information on interest rates, fees, maturities and commissions. The credit analy-sis is done by the banks. After the tender procedure is done the LGU provide financial statements, con-tracts with construction companies etc to the banks. For their own credit analyses, the banks look atLGU: revenues, own revenues, actual versus planned revenues i.e. the fiscal effort (80 % is consid-ered sufficient) and own taxes over total revenues i.e. the level of dependency (40 % is consideredsufficient). Other information and data banks examine include the relationship and political prolifera-tion of the Mayor versus Council, managerial skills of mayors etc. The banks develop their own pro-cedures for credit analyses of LGU. Banks are not interested in the intergovernmental transfers asthese are considered as certain.

In 2005 the city of Bucharest issued Euro Bonds with the rating agency being S&P. The problem isthat the proceeds are idle in a bank account and waiting for the fruitless debate on what they shouldbe spent to end. Such an experience shows that Euro Bonds are a political instrument rather than aninstrument to raise capital for investment.

Some LGU are listed at the stock exchange (13 or 14 of them). EBRD and IFC are enhancing thefinancial collateralized debt obligation in order to create special purpose vehicles to issue bonds andto help the process. There are also special guaranties from these financial institutions.

The possibility of LGU borrowing in Romania has served as an incentive for improved cost recov-ery through user charges even though subsidies remain especially for the heating and gas supply. Forexample, the joint initiative between the PHARE and the EBRD and EBI developed an application formfor the SAMTID funds to be used for regional projects. LGU that had access to the SAMTID funds wereforced to increase their tariffs and this was stated in the contracts. The willingness to pay was highbut subsidies to the poor stratum of the population were introduced.

There are big differences in financing the LGU. The large LGU were financed mostly by the ISPAand WB but small and medium LGU gained nothing. The general wisdom in Romania is that the largeLGU are afraid to borrow and the small LGU are not informed.

Currently sub-national governments have not used borrowing to pay for current expenditures. Thereis no type of regional development fund, no sub-national banks, bureau for development etc. Therewere some initiatives in this regard but these were not successful.

31

Annex 1. Field visit in Romania

A number of factors limit the extent of this report. One being the short time allocated to conduct areasonable number of interviews during the stay in Romania (list of individuals interviewed follows).It was not possible to observe in any depth the challenges faced by all levels of governments andstakeholders on a daily basis and was also not possible to base analysis here on a detailed local finan-cial data. Thus, much of the report relies on the information obtained in the interviews and a reviewof legal documents and existing studies.

Table 12. List of people interviewed in Romania

Annex 2. Relevant legislation in Romania

1. Constitution (1991 revised in 2003)2. Framework Law on decentralization (339/2006)3. Law on local public administration (69/1991 replaced in 2001 by Law no. 215 and now in 2006

by Law no. 286) 4. Law on local public finance 189 from 1998/2003/2006 5. Law on civil servants 6. Law on local elections (no. 70/1991) 7. Law 340 on the prefects 8. Law 188 on the statute of civil servants9. Law 326 on local public utilities10. Law on state budget (annual)11. Law on local taxes and charges (1994) amended in 200212. Law on fiscal code (no 571/2003)13. Emergency Ordinance from 2002 that establish maximum limits for taxes and charges related

to buildings, lands, automobiles and construction permits.14. Law on public domain that classifies the private domain that can be used as guarantee. 15. Law on municipal services 326 from 200116. Law on public debt 81/199917. Order no. 219 (2000) regarding calculation of the debt services18. Order no.7 (2001) that decides who is excepted from LGU bonds transaction19. Order no. 1631 (1999) regarding the obligation of the local public authorities to send

information about LGU borrowing20. Order No. 7, 2001 grants tax exemption to municipal bonds held by natural persons. 21. Law on patrimony for securing municipal debt with a mortgage on municipal property in the

private domain.

Interviewee Position Contact

Sorin Teodoru Consultant at the World Bank [email protected]

Radu Dorcioman Ministry of Administration and Interior Affairs [email protected]

Valentin Ionescu Legal expert at CSPD [email protected]

Victor Giosan State Secretary at the Romanian General Secretariat [email protected]

Casandra Bischoff Decentralization team at the World Bank [email protected]

Gabriela Matei Director of CSPD [email protected]

Adrian Oprica The BRD Bank [email protected]

32

22. The Law regarding securities and stock exchanges (No. 52/1994) provides that municipal securities are exempt from the disclosure requirements established by the National Securities Commission ("NSC").

23. Government Ordinance No. 35/30.01.2000 removes the restrictions of municipalities to deposit funds in banks for operations in "hard currency"

24. Prudential investment guidelines for private pension funds25. Law on concessions (no.219/1998), setting the general framework for concessions at the local

government level 26. Government Ordinance 92/2003 regarding the fiscal procedure code27. Law 522/2002 on local taxes and duties 28. Annex 1, "Competences fulfilled by local governments at the county level in providing public

services" 29. Annex 2 "Competences fulfilled by local governments at the commune and town level in

providing public services"

Annex 3. Applications to the Commission to authorize borrowing

ANNEX 1.1.APPLICATIONfor Borrowing Authorization*1)

1. Applicant name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Address in full, telephone/fax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Duly delegated persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Loan destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. Local public administration authority approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. Borrower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. Financier name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. Conditions of the loan authorization for which is sought:

Date Signature.............. (Primary Spending Agency)

_____________*1) To be filled in by local public administration authority if authorization of borrowing on the basis

of local public administration guarantee or state guarantee is sought, or if a subsidiary loan is provid-ed to the administrative unit.

Loan amount

(in such

currency as

denominated in

contract)

Annual interest

rate

Term of Loan

Grace period Repayment period

Level and timelines for

payments in principal,

interest and fees

33

ANNEX 1.2.STATEMENT

I, the undersigned ...................., lawful representative of county/city ................ , as primary spend-ing agency, state herein and am liable for this statement that the county/city has the following out-standing domestic and/or foreign loans or loan guarantees:

This Statement is part of the documentation required to authorize loan-taking/guaranteeing in theamount of ................ and I am liable, in conformity with Art. 27 of Law No. 313/2004 and Art. 70 ofGovernment Emergency Ordinance No. 45/2003 on local public finance, as amended and made intoLaw No. 108/2004, for any inaccurate data supplied.

Date Signature and seal..............

ANNEX 1.3.APPLICATIONfor Loan Guarantee Authorization *2)

1. Applicant name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Address in full, telephone/fax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Duly delegated persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Loan destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. Local public administration authority approval . . . . . . . . .6. Financier name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. Conditions of the loan for which authorization is sought:

Date Signature.............. (Primary Spending Agency)

*2) To be filled in by the local public administration authority, if authorization is sought of borrow-ing by an economic agent or a public service coordinated by local authority, and also if a subsidiaryloan guarantee is provided by the administrative unit.

Lender Loanamount(currencyasdenomi-nated incontract)

Loan

destina-

tion

Borrower Guarantor

Grace

period

Repayment

period

Loan duration Annual

payable

in

principal

Annual

interest

rate

Fees

Loan amount

(in such cur-

rency as

denominated in

contract)

Annual interest

rate

Term of Loan

Grace period Repayment period

Level and timelines for

payments in principal,

interest and fees

34

ANNEX 1.4.APPLICATIONfor Authorization of Local Public Administration Borrowing by Securities Issues

1. Applicant/issuer name ...............................2. Address in full, telephone/fax .......................................3. Duly delegated persons ...........................................4. Finance destination ..............................................5. Local Public Administration authority approval ................6. Information on securities issue:

- type of securities ........................................- form of securities ........................................- issue size ..................................................- nominal value ..................................................- selling price ..................................................- interest rate ......................................................- coupon yield ..............................................- maturity date .....................................................- issue guarantee ...............................................- size of finance expected to be mobilized ..........................- type of securities offer ................................- if sale is mediated, name of intermediation company/syndicate (lead-manager) - period of implementation ................................................- further details ........................................................

Date Signature.............. (Primary Spending Agency/Authority)

Annex 4. Norms and procedures for authorizing local government borrowing

A. Borrowing by Administrative Units

Domestic borrowing by administrative units means:! domestic state-guaranteed borrowing by administrative units;! domestic loans taken and guaranteed by administrative units;! borrowing from State Treasury general account availabilities to bridge temporary revenue-expen-

diture gaps in local budgets.

Foreign borrowing by administrative units means:! foreign loans taken by the State for on-lending to administrative units;! foreign loans taken by administrative units themselves with State guarantees;! foreign loans taken and guaranteed by administrative units themselves.

A local public administration authority applying to the Commission to authorize borrowing shallhave attached to its borrowing authorization application (see Annex 3) the following documents:

a) statement by primary spending agency/authority, which is liable therefore, that the investmentproject engineering and economic documentation was advised by the relevant Romanian authorities;

35

b) local public administration authority decision to borrow, to specify loan amount and its financier,the local budgeted servicing of the loan-related public debt, for the period of the loan, payment of anytaxes and charges associated with investment project implementation, which decision was made incompliance with Government Emergency Ordinance No. 45/2003 Art. 57 (2);

c) local public administration authority decision on approving the engineering-economic documen-tation, engineering and economic indicators of the investment project of local interest and its fundingsources;

d) decision on set-up of local council, county council of General Bucharest City Council, as appli-cable, and the list of authorized signatures;

e) local budget as approved for current year and as projected for the period of the loan authoriza-tion for which is being sought, to include own revenue and expenditure by MFP-approved budget clas-sification, including local public debt servicing expenditure incurred by the loan;

f) the administrative unit's local budget annual accounts for 2 years before the year when loan-tak-ing authorization is sought, and the quarter-year accounts for the current year;

g) the draft loan contract (agreement) sent by financier, to include: loan amount, loan currency,grace period, repayment period, rate of fees and other loan costs;

h) primary spending agency's statement for which it is liable of the status of other loans takenand/or guaranteed by the administrative unit, attached as Annex No. 1.2;

i) an estimate of the local public debt servicing during the period of the loan authorization of whichis being requested, to include payments in principal, interest, fees and other related costs, brokendown by domestic and foreign loan taken and/or guaranteed by the respective administrative unit, andthe loan the contracting of which is subject to authorization;

j) any other documents the Commission may request to review the application for authorization ofborrowing.

B. Borrowing Guaranteed by Administrative Units

Borrowing guaranteed by administrative units means domestic borrowing by economic agents orpublic services coordinated by administrative units, with such administrative units providing guaran-tees therefore.

Foreign borrowing guaranteed by administrative units means:! foreign borrowing by the state for on-lending to economic agents or public services coordinated

by administrative units, with such administrative units providing guarantees therefore;! foreign borrowing by economic agents or public services coordinated by administrative units,

with such administrative units providing guarantees therefore.

A local public administration authority applying to the Commission to authorize loan guaranteeingunder the statutory provisions in force shall have attached to the application for loan guarantee author-ization (see Annex 5) the following documents:

a) statement by primary spending agency/authority, which is liable therefore, that the investmentproject engineering and economic documentation was advised by the relevant Romanian authorities;

b) local public administration authority decision to guarantee the loan, to specify the amount of theloan and financier, which decision was made in compliance with Art. 57(2) of Government EmergencyOrdinance No. 45/2003;

c) local public administration authority decision on approving the engineering-economic documentation,engineering and economic indicators of the investment project of local interest and its funding sources;

36

d) decision on establishment of local council, county council of General Bucharest City Council, asapplicable, and the list of authorized signatures;

e) charter of the economic agent or public service coordinated by the administrative unit which isto guarantee such agent's or public service's borrowing;

f) decision of the Board of Directors or any other executive body of the economic agent or publicservice coordinated by the administrative unit on approving investment and borrowing, to specify loanamount and financier, local budgeted servicing of the loan-related public debt, for the period of theloan, payment of any taxes and charges associated with investment project implementation;

g) local budget as approved for current year and as projected for the period of the loan the author-ization of guarantee for which is being sought, to include own revenue and expenditure by MFP-approved budget classification, including local public debt servicing expenditure incurred by the loan;

h) the administrative unit's local budget annual accounts for 2 years before the year when loanguaranteeing authorization is sought, and the quarter-year accounts for the current year;

i) the draft loan contract (agreement) sent by financier, to include: loan amount, loan currency,grace period, repayment period, rate of fees and other loan costs;

j) primary spending agency's statement, it is liable therefore, of the status of other loans takenand/or guaranteed by the administrative unit, attached as (see Annex 5);

k) an estimate of the local public debt servicing during the period of the loan authorization of guar-antee for which is being requested, to include payments in principal, interest, fees and other relatedcosts, broken down by domestic and foreign loan taken and/or guaranteed by the respective admin-istrative units, and the loan guarantee of which is subject to authorization;

l) any other documents the Commission may request to review the application for loan-guaranteeauthorization.

C. Local Borrowing by Issuance of Securities

Local public administration authorities may borrow by issuing securities in compliance with the leg-islation on the treatment of securities. Securities may be issued and launched by local public admin-istration authorities themselves or through agencies of other specialist institutions. A local publicadministration authority shall submit to Commission Secretariat an application for authorization of bor-rowing by a securities issue (see Annex 3).

The issue prospectus shall basically provide information on:! total value of the securities issue and the project financed;! terms and characteristics of securities (type, form, currency they are denominated in, nominal

value, issue value, annual interest rate, maturity, coupon frequency);! terms and conditions of the securities issue (offer procedures, conditions and ways of selling

securities, payment agencies, the securities issue governing law).

Further Dispositions:

Within 10 days of effectiveness of a borrowing and/or loan guaranteeing contract/agreement, thelocal public administration authority shall convey to the Ministry of Public Finance copies of each pri-mary document confirming, as applicable:

! loan-taking/loan-guaranteeing;! the additional act to the loan/guarantee contract/agreement, if amended with due respect for con-

tractual provisions.

37

References:

[1] EAR Project on Strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planningin Macedonia, "Economic, Financial and Administrative Requisites of Approximation to the EuropeanUnion"; 2002-2003

[2] Farber G, "Local government borrowing in Germany". In: B. Dafflon (ed) Local public finance inEurope: Balancing the budget and controlling debt

[3] Felix Ejgel, "Creditworthiness, Ratings and Debt Issuance Trends in CEE"; Presentation for thetraining in LGU Credit Rating organized by CEA, Oct-Nov 2005

[4] "Fiscal Decentralization in Romania: Policy Reform Directions for the Short and Medium Term";April, 2002

[5] Fitch rating, "Special report for Romanian local authorities"; December 2003[6] Freedom House repot for Romania; 2004. [7] IPP Romania, "Local budgets equalization policy in Romania"; February 2005 [8] J. Petersen and J. B. Crihfield, "Linkages Between Local Governments and Financial Markets: A

Tool Kit to Developing Sub-Sovereign Credit Markets in Emerging Economies"; World Bank April 2000 [9] John Petersen with John B. Crihfield, "Linkages Between Local Governments and Financial

Markets: A Tool Kit to Developing Sub-Sovereign Credit Markets in Emerging Economies"; WB April2000

[10] Jorge Martinez Vazguez, "Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Romania: Challenges andOptions for Reform"; January 2006 draft

[11] Laure Paquette, "Strategic Interactions Between NATO, Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgariaand Romania After 2000"; June 2000, Lakehead University

[12] M. DeAngelis and G. Caluseru, "Municipal Credit and Finance in Romania"; USAID LGAP Oct.2000 and Restatement from Jan. 2002

[13] Pawel Swianiewicz, "Local government borrowing"; LGPSRI/OSI Budapest, 2004 [14] T.Levitas, "An Introduction to Municipal Borrowing in Serbia"; LGRP Serbia, USAID/DAI (Draft 2006)

[15] "Strategic Development Plan for Public Financial Management Reform in Romania 2005-2007"[16] Teresa Ter-Minassian, "Fiscal Federalism in Theory and Practice"; Washington DC, International

Monetary Fund 1997 [17] T.Spofford, "Fiscal Decentralization, Municipal Credit and Municipal Service Delivery in

Romania"; USAID LGAP April 2002[18] UNDP, "Fiscal Decentralization in Transition Economies: Case Studies from the Balkans and

Caucasus"; 2005 [19] Urban Institute, "Training needs assessment report for municipal credit market development in

Romania"; April - May 1998 [20] USAID ARD Inc., "Decentralization strategy: An analytical framework"; July 2005

39

COUNTRY RREPORT:

LOCAL GGOVERNMENT BBORROWING IIN BBULGARIA

MALGORZATA MARKIEWICZ


Sponsored by:



Budapest, Hungary





and publications.

40

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .432. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .433. Structure of government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .454. Expenditure responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .455. Revenue assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .476. Intergovernmental financial transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .497. Regulations on borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .508. Financing of the local government debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .539. Lessons learnt from Bulgarian experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Annex 1. Field visit to Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59Annex 2. Legislation related to LGU borrowing in Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59Annex 3: Local governments in Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

41


CEA Center for Economic Analyses (Macedonian think tank)ZELS Association of the units of local self-government of the Republic of MacedoniaFDWG Fiscal Decentralization Working GroupNAMRB National Association of Municipalities in BulgariaGDP Gross Domestic ProductPIT Personal Income TaxCIT Corporate Income TaxMDA Municipal Debt ActDCA Development Credit AuthorityEBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentWB World BankJBIC Japan Bank for International CooperationCFS Commission for Financial SupervisionBGN Bulgarian currency - Lev

List of tables

Table 1 Basic data on municipal expenditureTable 2 Basic data on municipal revenuesTable 3 Basic debt statisticsTable 4 Municipal debtTable 5 Municipal bond issues

42

Acknowledgments

CEA wishes to express highest gratitude to the OSI/LGI Budapest for the financial and other sup-port without which this project could've not been conducted, especially to Mr. George Guess, Mr.Adrian Ionescu and Ms. Marietta Kleineisel.

Our beneficiaries in Macedonia: ZELS, represented by Mr. Ace Kocevski (Mayor of Veles) andMinistry of finance, represented by Ms. Maja Parnardzieva (Head of public debt department) have aspecial importance for their contribution.

This report has been prepared by Malgorzata Markiewicz ([email protected]). Critical reviewand useful comments and inputs were provided by Marjan Nikolov (President of CEA) and Yana Kiri-lova (Club Economika 2000). This document will be published on the CEA web site(http://www.cea.org.mk) 10 working days after submission of the final report to LGI/OSI.

43

1. INTRODUCTION

The following case study describes the development of the local self-government in Bulgaria withspecial attention paid to issues of debt. Firstly, the study gives an overview of the regulatory changesand legislative actions to set up the system of intergovernmental relations. Then, the structure of localgovernments is described with attention paid to the election of the representative bodies. Basic infor-mation on the responsibilities for expenditure and revenue assignment is presented in the subsequentchapters. As the grants and transfers from the state budget comprise a substantial amount of the rev-enue for a local government, the next section sets out the rules by which such funding is provided.Next, an overview of the legislation on local government borrowing is presented and the results for thelocal budget financing are discussed. In the last section, the unresolved issues and institutional obsta-cles to debt market developments are set out. Based on this, some recommendations which arepotentially applicable for Macedonia are formulated.

This report is based on an extensive review of existing legislation and documents such as reports,analyses and research studies. Additionally, during the field visit to Sofia (27-28 September 2006) themain issues were clarified and discussed with the policy makers and researchers dealing with theissues of municipal debt.

2. BACKGROUND

The decentralization process started with adoption of a new Constitution in 1991, which definedBulgaria as country with local self-government. At the same time the Local Self-government and LocalAdministration Act was adopted. Since then this regulation has undergone numerous amendments.

Subsequently additional regulations were adopted to shape the system of local self government.These were:

The Administrative Division Act, The Local Election Act (1995) and The Municipal Budget Act (1998).

In 1995 the government adopted a concept for administrative-territorial reform, but it was notimplemented due to the economic crisis of 1996-1997.

A major institutional step forward was establishment of the National Association of Municipalitiesin late 1996. In 1998 the Law on Administrative Division was amended stipulating the replacement ofthe 9 regions that previously existed with 28 new regions by the end of that year. This reform was fol-lowed by approval of the Regional Development Act in 1999.

The regime of municipal ownership was set up by the Law on Municipal Property specifying thecompetences of each municipal authority in relation to municipal property. The rules for revenue col-lection were determined by the Law on the Local Taxes and Charges (1997).

In order to build consensus on the key issues confronting local government, the Local GovernmentForum was organized in 2001. The following problems were identified (Manual, 2005):

! permanent deficits, ! a non-transparent and unstable system of transfers ! a backlog in municipal investment.

44

In order to provide solutions to these problems, a Fiscal Decentralization Working Group (FDWG)was established in March 2002 by a resolution of the Council of Ministers. This group included broadlocal government representation, officials from central ministries and from local government organi-zations. It was mandated to make proposals for fiscal decentralization and to identify the requirementsfor implementation of the program. The FDWG provided leadership for meaningful reforms. The firstresult of its work was the Concept for Fiscal Decentralization (adopted in June 2002), which identifiedthe following objectives and principles for decentralization (Case study, 2005):

(1) Clarify the responsibility for the assignment of expenditure at municipal level;(2) Identify the responsibilities for the financing of state expenditure delegated to the municipalities;(3) Identify the responsibilities for the financing of the municipal expenditure;(4) Improve the legal environment for the development and implementation of municipal budgets.

Along with the Concept, a Fiscal Decentralization Program for 2002-2005 was adopted. Building onthe Concept, the program defined the legislative targets for enactment in the current year and the poli-cies for subsequent years. The specific steps, tasks, deadlines and the institution responsible forimplementation were identified.

FDWG organized itself into 3 task groups to work on the specific legislative changes that wererequired. As a result of these efforts, at the beginning of year 2003 fiscal decentralization reform wascarried out. The main change brought about by this reform is the division of the public services pro-vided by the municipalities into mandated and local option services. Fundamental changes in the inter-governmental transfers system were carried out as a result of this division of the services in particu-lar by the introduction of two new types of subsidies, the general complementary subsidy (for financ-ing mandated services) and the general adjustment subsidy (for financing local option activities).Another accomplishment of the reform is that the local governments were given powers to set therates of local fees.

All local government related laws mentioned above were updated in compliance with the changesintroduced by the fiscal decentralization reform.

A second working group was established in 2003 and dealt with development of the municipalcredit market (Municipal Borrowing Working Group). A draft of the legislation was developed and sub-mitted to the Ministry of Finance in early 2004. This legislation was approved by Parliament in April2005 and became effective on 1 June 2005 as the Municipal Debt Act which provided a comprehen-sive legal framework for municipal borrowing.

The third working group was established by the order of June 2004 of the Cabinet of Ministers, withthe task to develop and propose a permanent system for monitoring and evaluation of the fiscal decen-tralization process. The group approved two documents (Assessment, 2004):

(1) Permanent System of Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation of Fiscal Decentralization (2) Report on the Development of Fiscal Decentralization in 2003.

After the Parliamentary elections in June 2005, the new government continued the policy of decen-tralization. The FDWG was replaced by the National Council for Decentralization which was made upof representatives from all stakeholders. In October 2005, the government signed the agreement oncooperation with the National Association of Municipalities in Bulgaria (the only countrywide represen-tative body for the municipalities). The Council of Ministers and NAMRB jointly elaborated and adopt-

45

ed (June 2006) a Decentralization Strategy for 2006-2015 and a Program for its implementation in theperiod 2006-2009. Thus, for the second time since 2002 there has been a mid-term decentralizationreform agenda.

Having EU accession in mind, municipalities were delegated functions on internal audit. In the firsthalf of 2006, three new acts on this issue were adopted:

Public Sector Internal Audit Act,Public Sector Financial Management and Control Act, State Financial Inspection Act.

3. STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT

The Constitution provides for two main levels of local government namely the municipality and theregion. Bulgaria is now divided into 28 regions and 264 municipalities. The municipalities representlocal self-government, while the regions are deconcentrated administrations of central government.City districts and mayoralties are municipal subdivisions below the municipal level. Due to EU acces-sion, a new tier of government (NUTS II) represented by the six planning regions has been established.This level of the local government has the potential to develop regional development policy. Expertsstill argue that two out of six defined regions do not correspond to the EU standards from the point ofview of the number of habitants (CED, 2006), and so consensus still has to be reached.

Proposals for new borders for the NUTS II regions were made recently by the Ministry of RegionalDevelopment and Public Works but these need to be approved by Eurostat in order to become valid.

The region (oblast) represents the national government at provincial level, and harmonizes nation-al and local interests. The Governor of a region is appointed by the Council of Ministers. He is respon-sible for governing the region and is assisted by a regional administration. Region administrations haveneither the legal power nor the financial resource to carry out public investments. Their activities con-centrate on the preparation of development strategies.

The municipality is the basic administrative territorial unit in which local self-government is carriedout. The body of local self-government in the municipality is the Municipal Council, which is electedby popular vote and has a mandate of four years. The Municipal Council comprises of the electedcouncillors, the number of which depends on the population registered in the Municipality. The Mayoris the executive arm of the municipality. He is elected by the population for a four-year term of office.The municipality has an independent budget and its own property. The rights and obligations of thelocal authorities are defined in the Local Self-Government Act (LSGA).

4. EXPENDITURE RESPONSIBILITIES

The scope of local services is regulated in the LSGA. Article 55 sets forth the financing responsi-bilities of the municipal budgets as:

1. Operational costs and wage costs including social security contributions, for the health, social,educational and cultural activities supported by the municipality;

2. Public utilities; Construction, extension, reconstruction, maintenance, and operating repair ofmunicipal property, and the acquisition costs for municipal property;

3. Joint initiatives with other municipalities;

46

4. Costs of the Municipal Council and the municipal administration;5. Administrative and technical services for the community where these are free of charge;6. Town planning and cadastral records;7. Redemption of loans;8. Environmental protection activities;9. Capital investments in economic activities.

Over the last few years a reduction of the share of municipal expenditures in relation to GDP and tothe consolidated budget expenditures was observed (Table 1). The information presented in the tableillustrates the fall in municipal spending since 1999 and a trend towards centralization in the provisionof public services. As observed by Research Triangle Institute "these trends run contrary to the veryessence of fiscal decentralization". Two examples illustrate the tendency towards centralization:

! transfer of social assistance to the Ministry of Labour in 2003 ! transfer of municipal hospitals to the National Health Insurance Fund.

Table 1: Basic Data on Municipal Expenditure

Significant responsibilities for the provision of services have been assigned to municipalities with-out the transfer of matching resources. As a result two thirds of the municipalities have arrears in localactivities (Assessment, 2004). The highest arrears occur in the case of local activities, but there arealso arrears in the case of delegated activities. Due to limited availability of funds, current expenditurehas taken precedence over capital outlays. Investments have remained small both in size and as ashare of total expenditure.

Based on the Concept, the assignment of responsibility for expenditure between the state andmunicipal levels was clarified. The FDWG developed costing standards to determine the minimumfunding levels for mandated services in four sectors: education, health, culture and social welfare(Mid-course, 2003). These funding levels are negotiated based on the previous expenditure patternand not on analysis of the spending needs necessary to reach some specified level of services. Theassignment of budget is revised every year before the State Budget Act for the following year is enact-ed. In regard to local services, spending is driven by the availability of funds not by the estimate ofneeds. The FDWG decided that the labour cost of municipal administration will be included in the man-dated cost standards while the maintenance support costs were assigned as local expenses.

There are some weaknesses in the existing costing standard for the mandated services. Firstly his-torical data is used and the transfer for financing mandatory services is negotiated based on the pre-

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Municipal expenditure/ GDP 7.4 7.8 7.5 6.7 7.4 6.5 6.3 6.5

Municipal expenditure/ consolidated

budget expenditure 19.2 19.3 17.9 16.6 18.8 15.9 15.7 16.4

Municipal investments/ GDP 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.2

Municipal investments/Municipal expenditure 12.8 9.3 7.9 10.2 10.8 13.2 13.0 19.1

Municipal investments/ public investments 35.1 23.2 15.6 10.0 16.0 17.7 16.9 n.a.

Source: Ministry of Finance, data for municipal investments/public investments - Nenkova.Note: capital expenditures are represented as category of 'capital and state reserve gain' thus starting from 2001 theymay be overestimated. Another source (Nenkova) provides the following figures for capital investments in municipalexpenditures: 2001 - 6.5%, 2002 - 8.6%, 2003 - 11%, 2004 - 11%.

47

vious expenditure pattern. The second weakness is the capital costs of mandated services. At pres-ent, these are not included in the funding of mandated services and the government provides separatespecified capital investment subsidies, which are usually insufficient. As a result, municipalities haveno funds to finance capital investments and so the level of investment has declined steadily (Mid-course, 2003). As at September 2006, the costing standards for mandated services still do not pro-vide for capital expenditures.

Certain activities have mixed financing. These include kindergartens and nursery homes. The oper-ating costs of such an establishment are financed from a municipality's own revenues, whereas thesalary and social expenditures are financed from government transfers (Current status, UNDP).

State delegated activities are funded from shared revenues collected under the PIT Law. When theproceeds from PIT in a particular municipality are lower than the costs of its delegated activities, themunicipality receives a top up subsidy from the state. Local activities are financed from the munici-pality's own revenues plus the equalization subsidy.

5. REVENUE ASSIGNMENT

All potential revenue sources are defined in the Local Self-government Act (Article 53). The maincategories are:

1. Municipality's own revenues2. Share in state taxes3. Transfers and grants from the central budget

A municipality's own revenues include local taxes, charges and other local levies established by lawsuch as (Drumeva):

! Tax on real estate;! Inheritance tax! Tax on donations;! Tax on vehicles;! Proceeds from granting of concessions! Local charges on household waste! Charges for technical and administrative services! Charges for security and protection of agricultural property! Charges for use of kindergartens, nurseries, social care institutions etc.

The locally sourced revenues also include the revenues from the renting of municipal property. The most important characteristic of the local revenue system is the lack of power of municipali-

ties to set either the tax base or the tax rates. As a result, local taxes are local in name only, althoughthe proceeds are spent in line with the decisions of the municipal council (Mid course, 2003). Theattempt to grant greater local control over taxation was blocked by the Constitutional Court. Therefore,constitutional changes are necessary regarding the taxation rights of municipalities.

Until very recently municipalities did not play any role in tax collection,as all of the local taxes werecollected by the Regional Tax Offices (Mid course, 2003). Pursuant to the amendments to the LocalTaxes and Charges Act, the municipalities took over the collection of tax revenues. In 2005 some of

48

the municipalities were given the right to collect local taxes and charges as a pilot program. The resultsof this program were positive and since 1 January 2006 local taxes and charges have been collectedexclusively by the municipal administrations. Despite some concerns about the administrative capac-ity of local government, it seems that revenue collection has increased since the municipalities tookover this task.

Lack of power to set taxes has some important consequences. Firstly, the share of local taxes inmunicipal revenues has decreased since the beginning of the reforms in 2003 (Table 2) and revenuesare derived mainly through transfers from the central budget. Secondly, due to the low contributionmade by local taxes, local fees outweigh local tax receipts (Mid course, 2003).

Table 2: Basic Data on Municipal Revenues

Source: Assessment, 2004

The lack of power to set taxes has led to the level of local taxes being frozen. A good example isthe property tax, which accounts for one-third of the municipal tax revenues. The rates and base ofthe property tax have remained at the levels set in 1999 (Assessment, 2004). It is only in 2006 thatthe official value of real estate has been raised by 20-30%, leading to an expected growth in munici-pal property income of 18% (State Budget Act 2006).

The municipal council has the right to set the price for every service provided by the municipality,with the amount of these fees having to be set within the range stipulated in the Local Taxes andCharges Acts. An amendment to this regulation, effective from 1 January 2003, has given the munic-ipalities the authority to set the amount of fees, the methodology for determining the fee schedules,the definition of exemptions and the collection procedures (Mid course, 2003). The Municipal Councilsnow may raise the fees to a degree that allows them to cover the full costs of the relevant service. Dueto these legislative amendments, the revenues raised by the municipalities from their own sourceshave increased significantly. The garbage collection charge accounts for the highest relative share andimportance in local budgets.

In 2002, road tax was introduced as a new source of revenue to local government, with the purposeof financing road repairs. The road tax was actually a surcharge placed on the vehicle tax, but becauseof its purpose it was treated as a separate levy. In 2004 the revenue from road tax was replaced with aone-off transfer of the amount equal to the road tax revenues reported for 2003. This action has strong-ly increased the municipal budget dependence on central transfers (Assessment, 2004).

Municipalities are also eligible to receive a share of the taxes collected by the state. Until 2002 thisright referred to PIT (Personal Income Tax) and to CIT (Corporate Income Tax). In 2002 the legislationon income taxes was revised and the corporate income tax was eliminated as a municipal revenuesource and replaced by the full amount of the proceeds from PIT. The reason was that there were largevariances in revenues between municipalities. In the State Budget Act for 2003, PIT was allocated tofinance the state portion of the mandated services.

2003 2004 - projected 2005 - draft

Local taxes/ total tax revenues 1.9 1.7 1.4

Local taxes/ municipal revenues 9.1 9.6 8.4

49

This is a substantial change as previously the share of the PIT allotted to local government wasdefined each year in the State Budget Act (Epstein, 2000). Despite this arbitrary solution the share hasremained quite stable at 50% of PIT revenues.

In the administrative sense, municipalities have the right to keep the PIT revenues collected on theirterritory. Out of 264 municipalities only 17 do not keep the total amount of collected PIT. These 17 aremainly big municipalities like Sofia and the other large cities.

Municipalities may also receive revenues from the sale of municipal property. Proceeds from suchsales under Municipal Budget Act are registered as local revenues, whereas proceeds from salesunder the Act on the Privatization of State-Owned and Municipal Enterprises are placed in an off-budg-et municipal fund and may be used for investment or for paying off the debts of municipal enterpris-es (Current status, UNDP).

From 2006 the municipalities were assigned a new competence with the right given to mayors tosuspend illegal construction and to impose penalties. Until then, municipal bodies were engaged onlyin the identification of violations and submitting the information to the Directorate for NationalConstruction Supervision (CED, 2006).

Due to the recently introduced changes, municipal revenues are expected to grow by 18% as envis-aged with the State Budget Act 2006. There are two reasons for this namely the expected tax collec-tion rate and the increase in property tax revenues. However, local governments still remain highlydependant on transfers from the central budget.

Another category of local revenues are transfers and grants which are discussed in detail in nextsection.

6. INTERGOVERNMENTAL FINANCIAL TRANSFERS

Major reforms in this field were introduced in 2003. The purpose was to change the system of inter-governmental transfers, to rationalize the system of subsidies for capital investments and to stimulatedebt financing in order to provide the possibility of taking advantage of EU funds. In the new systemof intergovernmental transfers the funding was adjusted in line with service requirements. All munici-pal responsibilities were divided into mandatory i.e. those delegated by the central government, andthose provided optionally by the local governments.

The FDWG has developed costing standards for the mandated services that set the level of trans-fer going to each municipality. The government has agreed on the mechanism for setting operatingcost parameters annually and to fund the operating costs of mandated responsibilities. All thesechanges were included in the Municipal Budget Act that sets the minimum expenditure standards tobe financed by transfers for mandated services, establishes the size of equalizing transfer and distin-guishes between current and capital expenditures. It also established a budgetary section for debt andprohibits debt to balance current budgets.

There are 3 types of government subsidies:1. General complementary subsidy (for financing government-delegated activities)2. General adjustment subsidy (for financing local activities)3. Tied subsidy for investment

50

The purpose of the general complementary subsidy is to supplement PIT revenues in the financingof the delegated activities.

The second type of subsidy, often called the equalization subsidy, is granted to those municipali-ties whose revenues from local taxes per capita during the previous year were below the national aver-age. The MBA sets a mandatory minimum of the equalization subsidy at not less than 10% of the selfgenerated revenue reported by all municipalities during the previous year (Nenkova).

The third type is investment subsidy. Up to 2002 the central government distributed investmentsubsidies at its discretion and in the absence of appropriate rules. Moreover, the local capital expens-es were capped at a certain percentage of the municipality's self generated revenues (the limit in 1999was 10% of such revenues, in 2000 it was 5% and in 2002 up to 25% of projected revenues fromlocal taxes and non-tax sources) (Nenkova). Only in 2003 State Budget Act were the caps on usingself generated resources for capital investment purposes lifted.

The capital subsidy comprises two elements. The first includes funds for national investment proj-ects as determined by the state government. These funds are determined on an ad hoc basis everyyear and channelled through the different line ministries and central agencies. The second includesfunds for local projects. These funds are determined on the basis of population, area and the numberof populated settlements. These funds may be used for financing both delegated and local activitiesand distribution is decided by municipal council. Typically, the ad hoc subsidies amount to more thanthe target capital subsidy allocated under the formula.

Investment activity of local governments was further undermined by the practice of allowing the tar-geted investment subsidies to be transformed into a general subsidy at the end of the year (Epstein,2000). There was also the risk that an investment started by a local government might not get financedin subsequent budget years.

The formula for distribution of dedicated (capital) subsidy does not take into account the inter-municipal disparities in investment funding capability (Nenkova). There is a great disparity across themunicipalities in their capacity to fund investment. The crucial issue related to capital subsidies is howto find sources to match EU grants for regional development investments starting in 2007 as co-financing is a principal requirement for use of structural funds. Given the EU requirement for match-ing funds, the level of transfers has to rise substantially.

Central government target subsidies for capital expenditures increased from 75 million BGN in 1999to 123 million BGN in 2002 and 116 million BGN in 2003.

7. REGULATIONS ON BORROWING

Local government revenues increased by transfers from the state budget are insufficient to financethe necessary investments. Given the financial constraint at the central government level, the only pos-sibility was to allow borrowing at local level. In order to avoid the financial consequences of excessiveborrowing, some legal constraints had to be set. Municipalities had the general power to borrow underthe annual Municipal Budget Act as well as under the Local Self-Government and Local AdministrationActs, but there were many gaps in the existing regulations and so the new law was prepared. TheMunicipal Debt Act (MDA) was approved by Parliament in April 2005 and became effective on 1 June2005. The MDA provides a comprehensive legal framework for municipal borrowing thus completingthe existing regulations.

51

In line with the Local Self-Government Act, a municipal council has the competence to make deci-sions on bank borrowing, interest free lending and municipal bond issues under terms and proceduresprovided by the Act (art.21). A municipality may use bank loans, as well as interest free loans fromthe central budget under terms and conditions provided by the government (art.52). Additionally, amunicipality has the right to issue bonds. The borrowing purpose is limited as a municipality has noright to borrow for costs of a general nature such as paying wages or running current expenses. Theinterest on loans obtained by a municipality is funded from its current budget (art.52, p.6).

The rules on local borrowing were further specified in the Municipal Debt Act.

Municipal debt shall be incurred only by a resolution of a Municipal Council.Municipal debt comprises (art.3): ! Issues of municipal securities;! Debt incurred by municipal loan contracts;! Debt of municipal-owned enterprises;! Municipal guarantees that have become due;! Interest free loans extended by the central government budget, including those to co-finance programmes by the EU;! Obligations under commercial credit and arising from financial leases for a period exceeding two years.

The current liabilities of a municipality to suppliers of goods and providers of services shall not becounted as municipal debt.

The distinction has been made between short term and long term debt according to its purpose.Short-term debt may be incurred in order to finance current expenditures but has to be redeemedbefore the end of budget year (art.5). Long-term debt may be incurred to finance investment projects,refinance existing debt, to prevent and mitigate the effects of force majeure and to meet paymentsmade under municipal guarantees that have become due.

It is not allowed to secure municipal debt by means of pledge or mortgage of any items constitut-ing public municipal property (art.8).

Municipalities may incur debt in foreign currencies without any additional approval. The mayor shall prepare an annual report on the state of the municipal debt, which will be an inte-

gral part of the report on the implementation of the municipal budget (art.9). These annual reportsshall be transmitted to the Minister of Finance or the National Audit Office (art.18). The MDA stipulatesthat a Central Municipal Debt Register shall be established at the Ministry of Finance, with individualrecords for each municipality.

Creation of the debt register is the task of the municipal debt department. This register has alreadybeen developed and pilot testing has been implemented in nine municipalities. According to plans theregister should start operating at the beginning of 2007. The central register will comprise three ele-ments: a sub-register for local governments bonds, a sub-register for loans given to municipalities anda sub-register on guarantees.

The MDA sets specific limits on debts. The annual amount of payments on the debt during eachparticular year may not exceed 25% of the sum of revenues from a municipality's own sources and

52

the equalizing grant under the last audited report on the implementation of the municipality budget(art.12), and the nominal value of the municipal guarantees issued may not exceed 5% of the sameamount. The annual amount of payments on the debt comprise the principal, interest, charges, com-mission fees and other payments due on the debt incurred by the municipality. If the payments exceedthe above mentioned amounts then the municipality has no right to incur new debt or guarantees. Theoperation register will allow monitoring of these precautionary limits.

The MDA does not contain limits on the size of the outstanding debt. However, municipal debt isthe part of government debt, the upper limit of which is stipulated by Law on Government Debt (LGD):

"The outstanding portion of the consolidated government debt at year-end as a ratio of the project-ed gross domestic product may not exceed 60 per cent (art.10). In the event of any risk of non-com-pliance with the requirement under Article 10, the Council of Ministers may require some restrictionson the issuance of municipal debt and social security funds debt in the State Budget Law for therespective year".

Within the meaning of this Law, the consolidated government debt shall be the face value of thegovernment debt, the debt of the municipalities and the debts of the social security funds. Within twomonths from the coming into effect of this Law, the municipalities and the social security funds shallinform the Ministry of Finance of their outstanding debt and the guarantees already issued by them.

The Minister of Finance must prepare an annual report on the state of the government debt, whichmust then be considered by the Council of Ministers and submitted to the National Assembly as anintegral part of the government budget performance report for the year (art.15).

The Government Debt Directorate at the Ministry of Finance is responsible for reporting on gener-al government debt. Every month the information on municipal debt (aggregate figure) is collected andpublished. Once a year municipalities provide the Directorate with declarations on their planned debtissue. Based on this, the ratio of debt to GDP is monitored. Data on the arrears and debts of publicutilities are not collected.

There are no explicit guarantees of the municipal debt provided by government and does not con-stitute a liability of the government, except in cases where a government guarantee has been issuedaccording to the appropriate procedure (art.30).

By law, the official information on the consolidated government and government guaranteed debtshall be published on a monthly basis by the Ministry of Finance in the Official Bulletin and on theInternet (art.38).

Besides these regulations, the Financial Regulatory Commission has established guidelines andprocedures for the public offering of municipal bonds.

One of the weaknesses of the existing law is the lack of regulations concerning the default and theMDA does not deal with such situation. However the ordinance "Law on Municipalities in FinancialDistress" has been prepared by a governmental working group. Based on this ordinance the govern-ment has supported 14 municipalities which have accrued substantial arrears. These municipalitieshave developed rehabilitation programs and the Ministry of Finance monitors the implementation ofthese programs.

53

8. FINANCING OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEBT

No explosion of municipal borrowing is under way and Bulgaria had the chance to develop the legaland policy framework before any development of the debt market. Creditworthiness of municipalitiesis undermined by accrued arrears in the local activities although the monitoring of such liabilities isquestionable.

Table 3: Basic Debt Statistics, End of Period Data

Source: Ministry of FinanceNote: * end of November

There are numerous limitations on the development of municipal debt, which are now analyzedwithin the framework proposed by Leigland.

From the demand side: 1. Lack of a system of legal and procedural protection of investor rights. The Law on Local Government Debt has been adopted only recently;2. Lack of an active secondary market and transactions are still rare. Therefore the chances to sell investments before maturity remain very limited;3. Municipal bonds are backed primarily by tax revenues. However, the ability of local taxes to generate strong and consistent revenues is currently limited;4. Lack of institutions familiar with bond issues, which could play the role of underwriters;5. Lack of information regarding investment risks. The Bulgarian market only now has developed a disclosure system for the issuers;6. Lack of financial intermediaries willing to provide assistance in interpreting information. Thus basic judgements about the credit quality of municipal bonds are difficult to make;7. Municipal borrowing was limited due to the unstable financial standing of the banking system.

The banking crisis of 1996-1997 was followed by the introduction of the currency board from 1 July1997.

From the commercial banks' perspective the following constraints on local financing were identified(Case study, 2005):

1. Perception of municipalities as not being creditworthy due to their financial weakness and lack of financial knowledge. It was stressed that the growth in self generated revenues is a precondition for this perception to change (Mid-course, 2003);2. Budgets rely heavily on state transfers and thus the volume of predictable income that can be used for debt repayment is limited;3. Availability of collateral. Banks have required physical property as collateral to secure municipal debt but privatization has reduced this asset base. Banks have not accepted municipal revenues as a source of collateral;

2002 2003 2004 2005*

Consolidated state debt (million Euro) 8793.9 8148.7 7557.8 6625.9

Municipal debt (million Euro) 22 33.8 46.6 83.5

Consolidated state debt (% GDP) 53.2 46.1 38.9 31.3

Municipal debt (% GDP) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4

54

4. Municipalities have sought to finance investment projects and loans that were too large for the size of local budgets;5. Lack of well prepared projects submitted to the banks, and so credit analysis was not possible;6. Lack of belief by the banks that incumbents will honour the debt obligations undertaken by their predecessors in office;7. Preference among bankers to finance revenue-generating projects rather than infrastructure projects.

From the supply side: 1. The borrowing costs were relatively high and determined mainly by the macroeconomic developments. However, the costs of securities issuance are minimal making bonds an affordable financing alternative for creditworthy municipalities with the regular brokerage fee being around 0.5% of the value of bonds sold (Strategy, 2004);2. Short-term debt amortization. Relatively high risks and underdevelopment of the market did not allow extension of maturities;3. Assistance for small borrowers is limited. The Development Credit Authority Guarantee mechanism is the only credit enhancement mechanism which is functioning in regard to the municipal credit market (USD 20 million guarantee fund). Through the DCA, USAID provides guarantees on behalf of potential borrowers to United Bulgarian Bank for 50% of the principal loan amount that is due. The portfolio comprises 13 municipal projects successfully financed under the DCA;4. Lack of any form of responsible self-regulation with a focus on the disclosure of information.

These limitations are counterbalanced by the high liquidity of the financial institutions such as com-mercial banks and the pension funds. These investors are looking for good investment opportunities.Therefore the potential available supply of capital does not pose a constraint on the enlargement ofmunicipality credit market activity (Strategy, 2004). A tax stimulus is in place under the Taxation of theIncome of Natural Persons Act effective January 1, 1998. Under this Act, interest paid on state secu-rities is not liable to tax when acquired by natural person (the interpretation of the tax authorities is thisprovision also applies to interest paid on municipal securities) (Epstein, 2000).

The primary source of municipal debt is the provision of loans by the banking sector (Table 4).However, only few commercial banks have municipalities as clients. In order to receive loan from aparticular bank, a municipality has to be a client of that bank and in most cases to move all itsaccounts to the bank extending the loan. Banks recognize that few municipalities have budgets thatreliably generate the operating surpluses needed to service debt. Banking credits are used to covertemporary cash deficits. Long-term lending is still rare (Strategy, 2004). There are also internationalinstitutions providing loans to the municipalities. For example, Sofia received loans from internationalinstitutions (EBRD, WB, JBIC, Council of Europe Development Bank). At the end of 2005 banking cred-it from domestic and foreign sources comprises 52.9% of the municipal debt.

55

Table 4: Municipal Debt

Source: Ministry of Finance, State Debt, December 2005Note: * end of November

Some banks prefer to finance municipalities through bonds rather than credits due to their higherliquidity, the possibility to use bonds as collateral by investor, and the lack of pledge requirements asis the case with loans. On the other hand public issue of bonds requires more information to be dis-closed publicly than in the case of a bank loan.

Bonds comprise 18% of municipal debt at the end of 2005. To date Bulgarian municipalities havecompleted 10 bond issues with diverse structures (Table 5). Several municipalities have been unsuc-cessful in issuing bonds (Strategy, 2004).

The law does not prevent borrowing in foreign currencies. However, the issues in foreign curren-cies, namely Euro, are rather uncommon (Table 5).

Two issues of municipal bonds have been rated by international agencies namely: the Issue by Sofiain 1999 rated by Standard and Poor and the 2000 Varna Issue rated by Moody. There are also domes-tic rating agencies in Bulgaria, but lack of transparency regarding their methodologies and their shorthistory limits their credibility as a source of information for the financial community (Strategy, 2004).

There are institutions in place to regulate the issuing of bonds. Since 2003, the issuance of munic-ipal bonds has been regulated by Ordinance 2/2003. Up to June 2004 no public or private offering wasmade under these new requirements. Municipal debt (bonds and credits) is regulated and supervisedby the Commission for Financial Supervision (CFS) and the National Bank of Bulgaria. The public offer-ing of bonds is supervised by the CFS.

2004 2005* 2004 2005*

thousands BGN Structure

Domestic 52318.8 110027.5 57.4 67.3

Securities 10179.6 29459.3 11.2 18.0

Loans from banks and other financial institutes 26244.8 61144.8 28.8 37.4

Loans from central government 2764 4093.3 3.0 2.5

Loans from extra-budgetary funds 6276.7 8363.6 6.9 5.1

Other 6853.7 6966.5 7.5 4.3

External 38813.3 53348.4 42.6 32.7

Loans from banks and other financial institutes 18863 25299.2 20.7 15.5

State guaranteed 19950.3 28049.2 21.9 17.2

Total 91132.1 163375.9 100 100

56

Table 5: Municipal Bond Issues

Source: Strategy (2004); Gumpel P.E. (2006)

Another source of deficit financing is by loan from the budget (2.5% of municipal debt in the endof 2005). In the past, the government provided credits to municipalities, which were spent to financecurrent expenditure. This was possible as the purpose of loan was not regulated by law. Under theamended Municipal Budget Act, from the beginning of 2004, municipalities have access to interest-free loans from the central budget in order to pre-finance costs for approved projects under programsco-financed by the EU, until such costs are reimbursed (Nenkova).

In the past the borrowing activity was constrained by the ceiling placed by the central governmenton capital investments. The State Budget Act limited the amount of local government investments tothe amount authorized in the investment grant. Beyond this level with its targeted subsidy, local gov-ernments were limited to additional investment spending of only 10% of self generated revenue asdefined by the Ministry of Finance. This investment spending limit was reduced to 5% in the 2000budget. (Epstein, 2000). In practice this was another borrowing limit, although the local governmentshave not spent to the full amount of the limit.

Svishtov Sofia Varna Sliven Dupniza Dobrich Varna Shoumen Svilengrad S. ZagoraIssued in 1999 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005Total value 0.37 million 50 million 3 million 3 million 1.3 million 2.6 million 3 million 4 million 2 million 5 million

BGN EUR BGN BGN EUR BGN BGN BGN

Purpose n.a. Restructuring Street lighting Bus station Financing Streets Modernization Rehabilitation Financing Rehabilitation

of the urban (energy (1.85 million of network of urban road of the road of key of the road

infrastructure efficiency BGN), building infrastructure upgrade infrastructure network infrastructure network,

cost saving) covered projects projects opera house

and cultural pedestrian remodelling

and bridge

educational (850 ths. BGN)

facilities - building citrus

in the fruits market

proportion (150 ths. BGN)

50/50 and flower

market (150

ths BGN)

Type n.a. Interest- Interest- Interest- Interest- n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

bearing, free bearing, bearing, bearing,

transferable freely freely

transferable transferable

Interest rate 5.6% 9.75% 9% paid 9% 9% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

on annual semi-annually on annual

basis basis

Grace period n.a. None n.a. 1 year n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Maturity 7 years 3 years 3 years 4 years 4 years 5 years 3 years 5 years 5 years 10 years

Repayment Coupon The coupon 1 million per Principal Coupon n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

schedule payment on a payment year repaid in three payment

semi-annual shall be made equal on an annual

basis on an annual instalments/ basis

basis the coupon on

a semi-annual

basis

57

The growth in debt is necessary to remove the infrastructure investment gap. One analysis con-ducted by the World Bank provided an estimate of the financial requirements needed by Bulgaria tomeet the environmental standards for EU accession (World Bank). The results were presented inbrackets. The lower estimate for municipalities to upgrade environmental infrastructure amounted toover BGN 1,000 million per year in capital costs and the higher was BGN 1,800 million annually. Itmeans that current investment expenditures need to double.

Besides banks, another financing source for the municipalities is Foundation for Local GovernmentReform which provides short term credits (up to 1 year). In 2004 a revolving fund was established inorder to finance municipal projects such as small infrastructure projects and the pre-assessment andpreparation costs for investment proposals. Financing is provided for small projects (5-30 thousandBGN) at interest rates below the market rate. The borrowing period is set at less than 12 months aspublic tender procedures are required for longer debt periods Until now there were no problems withrepayment of these loans. In the market for long term borrowing, the commercial banks are very activeproviding credits at very competitive prices which are below the price of bond issues.

9. LESSONS LEARNT FROM BULGARIAN EXPERIENCE

The level of fiscal decentralization measured by local expenditures is still very low. There is no finan-cial autonomy at the local level as self generated revenues remain lower than those allocated from cen-tral government sources. Local authorities do not control the scope and sources of their self generat-ed revenues and are dependent on the resources allocated by central government. Local Authoritiesalso need to get authorization on spending. Central government controls more than 80% of local budg-et revenues without bearing the responsibility for providing public services to local residents.

The fiscal decentralization reforms accelerated significantly when the formal institutional body(FDWG) was created. The FDWG comprised of representatives of all stakeholders from the municipalleadership to key central ministries. The comprehensive plan of reform was prepared and its imple-mentation was constantly monitored and adjusted when necessary. Thus, the fiscal decentralizationprogram was kept on track. The members of FDWG had access to reliable and up to date data onmunicipal finance. Continuity of leadership has accompanied the reform process.

This institutional solution allowed reforms to proceed, together with the solving of different prob-lems according to the priorities assigned. Within a relatively short period of time the system of trans-fers has been changed and a comprehensive legislative framework of municipal debt has been set up.

As the law on local debt was implemented only in mid-2005, it is too early to evaluate how it worksin practice, although some observations can be made. The monitoring system is not in operation, socomplete information on municipal borrowing is not yet available. The current regulations do not dealwith insolvency issues, which is a significant weakness. Despite this the regulatory framework is inplace to allow the secure development of the municipal debt market.

There are some unresolved issues. The most important is a change in the constitution necessaryto authorize municipalities to unilaterally set local taxes and fees. This constitutional limitation on localdiscretion to set taxes has resulted in low proportion of self generated revenues in municipal budgets.For now municipal revenues come mainly from shared taxes and transfers, making municipalitieshighly dependent on centralized funding. Thus, there is no room for a municipality to have an inde-

58

pendent investment policy. This is highly important as in 2007 Bulgaria joins the EU and accessionwill require massive investments in environmental repair and improvement. There is also a need to co-finance such investments with domestic funds.

During the last two years the need for constitutional change has become understood and theamendment is expected to be made by the end of 2006. The amendment will give municipalities theright to determine the size of local taxes within limits defined by law (CED, 2006). It is planned thatalong with increased powers of taxation, municipalities will be charged with new responsibilities suchas providing professional schools and specialized medical and social establishments.

EU membership will create new investment opportunities with the price of having to provide co-financing for the projects. In response to this, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Worksis drafting a new ordinance for the creation of a Local Development Fund in December 2006. It isplanned that the state budget will not provide more than 40% of the resources of this fund while theremainder will come from a syndicated loan managed by the EBRD (CED, 2006).

It is necessary to set a more transparent and predictable system of transfers. At present delegatedexpenditure responsibilities are not sufficiently secured against revenues and thus municipalities aremore distributors of funds than independent policy makers.

The remaining weakness is the unclear mechanism for determination of subsidies needed to covermunicipalities' investment costs. The existing law provides an option to transform dedicated subsidiesinto all purpose subsidies which then could be used to cover current expenditures. Municipal invest-ment expenditures are considered to be of low priority. The lack of stable rules for the amount of cap-ital subsidy does not allow the municipalities to plan their investment programs (CED, 2006). Thestrong dependence of municipalities on centralized funding restricts their ability to formulate andimplement independent local policy (CED, 2006). The municipal budget should be divided into currentand capital and the possibility to carry forward expenditures from one year to another should be con-sidered.

In general, there has been strong leadership shown in the process. Despite this, the level of decen-tralization is low, as municipalities are still largely centrally financed. Expected constitutional changesshould improve this situation, but strong cooperation between central government and municipalitiesremains a necessity. Further progress in decentralization could be measured by the financial autono-my granted to the local governments. Today such autonomy is very limited.

59

Anex 1. Field visit to BulgariaList of people interviewed during the filed visit to Bulgaria (27-28 September, 2006)

Anex 2. Legislation related to LGU borrowing in Bulgaria

A number of laws that affect municipal finance have been adopted:1. Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, Official Gazette, 19912. Ratification of the European Charter on Local Self-government, 19953. Local Self-government and Local Administration Act, Off. G. No. 77/1991 and amendments4. Law on Local Elections, Off. G. No 66/1995 and amendments5. Law on the Local Taxes and Charges, Off. G. No. 117/1997 and amendments 6. Law on Administration, Off. G. No. 130/1998 and amendments 7. Law on Civil Servant, Off. G. No. 67/1999 and amendments 8. Municipal Property Act, Off. G. No. 44/1996 and amendments 9. Law on Municipal Budgets, Off. G. No. 33/1998 and amendments 10. Law on the Administrative and Territorial Division of the Republic of Bulgaria, Off. G.

No. 63/1995 and amendments11. Regional Development Act, 199912. Municipal Debt Act, Promulgated, SG No. 34/19.04.2005 (effective 1.06.2005)13. Corporate Income Tax Act and Natural Persons Income Tax Act, 2002 - the corporate income

tax was eliminated as a municipal revenue source and was replaced with the full amount proceeds from PIT.

14. Monitoring and evaluation system, adopted by FDWG in September 2002 - the proposed amendment to the Constitution was submitted in 2003 in order to expand the taxation authorities of the municipalities.

15. The formation of the regions as new administrative and territorial unit act (promulg. SG, No. 65 of 1987, amend., No. 45 of 1989)

16. Law on the government debt, (Issued by the 39th National Assembly on 17 September 2002; published in the State Gazette, issue 93 of 1 October 2002)

Interviewee Position

Valentina Grozdanova Director of the Local Governments Directorate at the Ministry of Finance

Ljudmila Bojanova Head of Sector Analyses Division, Government Debt Directorate at the Ministry of Finance

Zdravko Sechkov Financial Director at the Foundation for Local Government Reform

Emil Kaltchev Senior researcher at the Center for Economic Development

60

Annex 3: Local governments in Bulgaria

Source: Ministry of Finance

Thousands of BGN 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Total revenue and grants 1,027,493.1 1,087,820.5 1,122,423.6 1,364,828.8 1,489,534.1 1,422,107.6 823,500.9 935,053.5

Tax revenue 858,351.8 848,029.9 864,538.5 1,020,320.4 1,082,910.2 933,381.5 224,659.1 245,529.4Profit tax 266,711.6 251,495.3 245,518.9 393,338.2 394,979.3 ---- ---- ----Income tax 508,497.7 507,349.9 524,177.2 522,114.8 520,376.0 724,059.9 ---- ----Excise and fuel duties 101.1 22.8 30.2 33.1 28.5 15.5 4.2 1.9Other taxes 83,041.4 89,161.9 94,812.2 104,834.3 167,526.4 209,306.1 224,654.9 245,527.5

Non-tax revenue 169,024.1 239,505.9 257,628.6 337,000.6 396,163.6 480,852.1 591,202.8 679,210.2Grants 117.2 248.7 256.5 7,507.8 10,460.3 7,874.0 7,639.0 10,314.0

Transfers from central government (net) 617,701.0 737,678.0 832,555.9 640,856.7 870,719.6 755,725.5 1,590,111.4 1,663,644.1Transfers without Income tax 866,051.5 939,584.2Total expenditure 1,658,716.0 1,864,094.8 2,005,339.6 1,990,101.1 2,391,577.6 2,243,815.5 2,382,465.8 2,738,673.4

Current 1,446,785.8 1,690,971.4 1,847,382.8 1,787,162.7 2,132,942.8 1,946,699.0 2,071,586.8 2,214,724.7Compensation of employees 692,642.4 821,280.4 782,813.3 667,750.5 785,013.6 845,891.8 922,944.1 947,697.0Maintenance and operating 592,300.6 706,763.4 770,049.1 661,845.5 796,985.5 880,948.6 1,039,331.0 1,140,761.3Subsidies 65,798.2 24,337.1 22,977.5 159,526.2 184,642.8 201,653.7 90,324.4 105,440.7

to non-financial enterprises 65,798.2 24,337.1 22,977.5 23,943.5 25,809.9 36,046.9 38,858.8 43,125.7for health care and medical assistance 135,582.7 158,832.9 165,606.8 51,465.6 62,315.0

Interests 1,200.9 571.3 10,042.1 10,157.1 10,581.5 2,433.4 4,020.1 5,760.1Social expenditures, scholarships 94,843.7 138,019.2 261,500.8 287,883.4 355,719.4 15,771.5 14,967.2 15,065.6

Capital and state reserve gain 211,930.2 173,123.4 157,956.8 202,938.4 258,634.8 297,116.5 310,879.0 523,948.8Deficit -13,521.9 -38,596.3 -50,360.1 15,584.4 -31,323.9 -65,982.4 31,146.5 -139,975.8

61

References

[1] CED, Fiscal decentralization in Bulgaria. Current situation and recommendations for futureactions, (Summary Report), March 2005, Sofia

[2] De Angelis M., Udma V., Eneva M., Strategy for the Development of the Bulgarian MunicipalCredit Market, RTI International, June 2004, Sofia

[3] Drumeva E., Local Government in Bulgaria, Local government in Central and Eastern Europe,Chapter 4

[4] Epstein P., Peterson G.E., Pigey J.H., Sherer S., DeAngelis M., Municipal Credit MarketDevelopment in Bulgaria: Policy and Legal Framework, The Urban Institute, February 2000

[5] Gumpel P.E., Municipal bonds as a way to support infrastructural development, Meinl Bank,Presentation at second annual conference - the future of capital markets in the Balkans, Belgrade, June15, 2006

[6] Leigland J., Accelerating Municipal Bond Market Development in Emerging Economies: AnAssessment of Strategies and Progress, www.rti.org/cid;

Local Government Initiative Decentralization Team, Assessment of the draft 2005 State Budget inlight of the fiscal decentralization reform program, Sofia, 15 October, 2004

[7] McCullough J.S, Savov E., Ivanov S., Mid-course review of fiscal decentralization: the unfin-ished agenda, June 2003, Sofia

[8] Nenkova P., The mechanism for determination, allocation and management of capital transfersin Bulgaria - state of play, issues and improvement opportunities, CED

[9] RTI International, Case Study on Municipal Infrastructure Finance Reform in Bulgaria, 2005[10] State of Decentralization in Bulgaria, CED, September 2006[11] UNDP, Current status of decentralization and the preparedness of local and regional levels for

participation in the EU structural funds, Issues Paper[12] USAID, Municipal Budget Manual for Bulgaria, October 2005[13] World Bank, Bulgaria: The Dual Challenge of Transition and Accession, A World Bank Country

Study, February 2001

63

COUNTRY RREPORT:

LOCAL GGOVERNMENT BBORROWING IIN MMACEDONIA

MARJAN NIKOLOV


Sponsored by:



Budapest, Hungary





and publications.

64

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .692. Structure and scope of the Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Legal framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Territorial organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

3. Assignment of competences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Subsidiarity principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Competences assigned and expenditure arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73Deconcentration and decentralisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73Overall assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

4. Own revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74Structure - types of own revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75Sufficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76Principles for own revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76Local administration of transferred revenue tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77Overall assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

5. Inter-governmental transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78Structure - types of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Vertical equalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Horizontal equalisation and equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80Revenue adequacy and growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80Predictability, simplicity and transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80Allocative efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80Overall assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

6. Financial management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85Treasury management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85Internal audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85Overall assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

7. Borrowing at LGU level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86Sources of financing of infrastructure projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86Regulations on LGU borrowing in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88The LFLGU in Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94Net operating surplus at LGU in Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95The EU perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96Financial market structure in Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99The demand side of LGU borrowing in Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101The supply side of LGU Borrowing in Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102The investment at economic scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

65

LGU services and borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106Subsovereign Rating Factors in Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110Annex 1. Relevant legislation in Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115Annex 2. Basic data for Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115Annex 3. The two-phased approach of fiscal decentralization in Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . .116Annex 4. Comparative insolvency matrix in Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . .117Annex 5: Strategic assessment of borrowing at LGU level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118Annex 6. The EU perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120Annex 7. Illustrative credit rating analyses for Macedonian LGU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

66


BIS Bank for International Settlements CAPEX Capital ExpenditureCB Central BankCE Communal Enterprise CEA Macedonian based think tank-Center for Economic AnalysesGFS Government Finance StatisticsCIA Central Intelligence AgencyCSPD Romanian think tank-Center of Studies and Programs for DevelopmentDWG Decentralization Working GroupEBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentGSU Georgia State UniversityIMF International Monetary FundIPP Romanian Institute for Public PolicyIPA Instrument for Pre-Accession AssistanceLGAP Local Government Assistance ProgramLGU Local Government UnitLFLGU Law on Financing LGUMCI Municipality Composite IndicatorNUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for StatisticsOFA Ohrid Framework AgreementOG Official Gazette PFI Private Finance InitiativePHARE EU pre-accession instrument, Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their

EconomiesPIT Personal Income TaxPPP Public Private PartnershipPRO Public Revenue Office SAPARD EU pre-accession instrument, Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural

DevelopmentUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUSAID US Agency for International Development VAT Value Added TaxZELS Association of Macedonian LGUWB World Bank

List of tables and figures

Box 1 Bringing services closer to the citizens or notBox 2. Examples of intergovernmental transfers based on non transparencyBox 3. Approximation/Convergence

67

Table 1 Size of LGU revenuesTable 2 Typology of grant programsTable 3 Sources of financing of infrastructure projectsTable 4 Pros and Cons for LGU borrowingTable 5 LGU borrowing regulations in Western Europe countriesTable 6 LGU borrowing regulations in newly EU countriesTable 7 LGU borrowing regulations in Macedonia, Bulgaria and RomaniaTable 8 LSG debt structure in Macedonia in 2004Table 9 Stock of public debt of the Republic of MacedoniaTable 10 Local expenditure/total public expenditures and local investments/total public investmentsTable 11 Macedonian LGU operating surplusTable 12 Classification criteria of NUTS areaTable 13 Population by NUTS 3 level in MacedoniaTable 14 Risk categories and levels by instrumentsTable 15 Financial institutions in the Republic of MacedoniaTable 16 Stakeholders in municipal credit market developmentTable 17 Assessment of total investments for approximation of Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria

to EU environmental legislationTable 18 Disparity in LGU expenditure level and composition in 2002Table 19 Disparity in LGU expenditure level and composition in 2006Table 20 Percentage of LGU having less than 2000 (1000 for Bulgaria) and less than 5000

inhabitantsTable 21 Factors considered in judging the creditworthiness of subsovereign creditsTable 22 Basic data about Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria for 2006Table 23 Illustration of the two-phased approach of fiscal decentralization in MacedoniaTable 24 Comparative insolvency matrix in Macedonia, Estonia, Romania and BulgariaTable 25 Assessing the status of LGU borrowing and infrastructure development by countryTable 26 Key LGU borrowing and infrastructure development initiatives pursued

by countryTable 27 Reform priorities for LGU borrowing and infrastructure development

by countryTable 28 The EU perspectives in Macedonia, Romania and BulgariaTable 29 Illustration of credit rating comparison of Macedonian LGUTable 30 Composite index of economic developmentTable 31 Statistics available for the variableTable 32 CEA MCI Index based on 28 variablesTable 33 Number of classes according the Sturges' rule

Figure 1 Economies of scale of administrative costs at LGU in Macedonia

68

Acknowledgments

CEA wishes to express highest gratitude to the OSI/LGI Budapest for the financial and other sup-port without which this project could've not been conducted, especially to Mr. George Guess, Mr.Adrian Ionescu and Ms. Marietta Kleineisel.

Our beneficiaries in Macedonia: ZELS, represented by Mr. Ace Kocevski (Mayor of Veles) andMinistry of finance, represented by Ms. Maja Parnardzieva (Head of public debt department) have aspecial importance for their contribution.

This report has been prepared by Marjan Nikolov, MSc ([email protected]). Critical review anduseful comments and inputs were provided by Malgorzata Markiewitz, Economist at CEA. This docu-ment will be published on the CEA web site (http://www.cea.org.mk) 10 working days after submis-sion of the final report to LGI/OSI.

69

1. INTRODUCTION

The overall objective of this study on local government1 borrowing is to accomplish an all-encom-passing review that systematically captures the entirety of the fiscal decentralization processes withan emphasis to the local government borrowing in each of the three transition countries: Romania,Bulgaria and Macedonia. As part of this larger study, the main purpose of this country report is to pro-vide an overview of the progress in the process of decentralization after July 2005 when the processstarted and an overview of issues with the local government borrowing in Macedonia.

This study is neither a credit rating analysis nor does it cover specific aspects of local governmentborrowing in detail. Rather the study provides an overview of each of the building blocks of intergov-ernmental fiscal relations (structure of the government sector, delineation of responsibilities for expen-diture, assignment of revenue sources, intergovernmental transfers, financial management issues,subnational borrowing legislation, infrastructure and the financing side of the subnational budget andthe municipal debt characteristics). The study also considers the technical nature of the strengths andweaknesses of the decentralization process, with a special emphasis on experiences in local govern-ment borrowing and recommendations for further development.

Macedonia is in a position to develop the legal and policy framework first, in anticipation of thefuture development of a municipality credit market. Macedonia can learn from the experience inRomania and Bulgaria2 and from the risks that have become clear in other countries. Excessive bor-rowing by sub-national government or debt issuance in the absence of an adequate legal framework(one that clarifies critical issues like the status of guarantees and the remedies available to lenders inthe event of a municipality's non-payment) has exacerbated national economic crises. Premature bor-rowing, before a municipality has established its creditworthiness and identified clear investment pri-orities, is likely to drain local budget resources and to add risk to the fiscal system. The potential ben-efit of soundly based local borrowing is great, but the risks involved in badly prepared borrowing alsoare large. Stakeholders (LGU, national government, banks, and potential investors in municipal debt)share an interest in ensuring that the policy issues surrounding credit market development are wellunderstood and that an appropriate legal framework is in place before the market actually opens.

We believe that by reviewing the process of decentralization one year after it started (1st of July2005) we can gain important insights for the future borrowing at LGU level. Thus, the study openswith review of the process of decentralization in Macedonia, followed by consideration of the manyaspects of LGU borrowing. Useful information and data are presented in the annexes especially theinsolvency matrix in annex 4 and the strategic analysis of LGU borrowing presented in annex 5. Annex5 contains three two-dimensional matrices that served as a base for collating information obtained inthe course of our field trips and for developing this country report (originally developed by the GSU;more in UNDP 2005). The three matrices in Annex 5 are labeled as Tables 25, 26 and 27.

! Table 25 (The Assessment Matrix): Identifies the current state of borrowing and maps policyareas within the realms of borrowing and local government reform that present the current keypolicy issues and obstacles for the further development of borrowing.

1) In this report we will use the Local Government Unit-LGU, subnational government, local government, county level, communes, municipalities and cities interchangeably. When necessary for more clear text we will stress what is the tier we are talking about.

2) Basic data about these countries are illustrated in the Annex 1.

70

! Table 26 (The Reform Initiatives Matrix): Identifies and maps recent or ongoing initiatives pur-sued by the national government, subnational governments and their associations, as well asother donor agencies and stakeholders within the realms of borrowing and local governmentreform that are aimed at addressing and resolving the obstacles and challenges noted in theAssessment Matrix.

! Table 27 (The Reform Priorities Matrix): Within the same dimensions as the previous two matri-ces, the Reform Priorities Matrix identifies priorities for further action in areas that are either cur-rently underserved in the policy discussion on borrowing or areas where a fresh perspective maystimulate new policy thinking.

2. STRUCTURE AND SCOPE OF THE GOVERNMENT

The process of decentralisation requires not only that the Government has the political commitmentbut also has the capacity for the coordination and sequencing of the process. The DecentralisationWorking Group (DWG) was established by the government to monitor progress towards decentraliza-tion. The DWG and its Sub-Groups did not succeed fully in achieving their aims of monitoring theprocess of decentralisation, identifying and solving problems, managing risks and dealing with theweak capacity of local governments.

The evolution of decentralization in Macedonia has been a mixture of political inefficiency and eth-nic disputes. Three periods can be identified in the process of decentralization.

The first of these periods was one of centralization between 1991-1995 which left the municipali-ties without competencies and without an efficient system of financing. The GDP declined continuous-ly until 1996 when the unemployment level reached 32 %. During this period, the government wasfocused on achieving macroeconomic stabilization and on privatization.

During the second period 1995-2001, macroeconomic stabilization was achieved but the overalleconomic performance was rather poor with an average annual growth rate of around 2 %. During thisperiod, for the first time after independence, a new Law on LSG was adopted in 1995 and a new Lawon Territorial Organization was adopted in 1996. Both laws were products of a highly ethnically andpolitically motivated process.

Contrary to the widely accepted "wisdom" held by donors that the Ohrid Framework Agreement(OFA) brought about the process of decentralization in Macedonia, the process of decentralization infact started after Macedonia signed the European Charter in 1996 and ratified it in 1997. The processwas backed up by two important documents namely the Government Program of 1999 and theGovernment Strategy for Reforming the Public Administration also of 1999. As a result of these twoinitiatives, a Working Team within the Ministry of LGU was established in March 1999 to start theprocess of decentralization. .

In 1999, the Kosovo conflict further complicated ethnic tensions in Macedonia leading to an armedinterethnic conflict in 2001. The crisis in Macedonia ended with the signing of the OFA in 2001. TheOFA called for constitutional changes as well as the adoption of a new Law on LSG (adopted in 2002)and thus the decentralization initiatives of 1999 gained a new momentum. One consequence of thepolitically-driven process (rather than a fiscal decentralization process motivated by a desire toimprove economic efficiency) was the reverse sequencing of decentralization, with revenue decentral-ization preceding a loosely defined assignment of expenditure.

71

Essentially the decentralization of particular functions has been delegated to line ministries, whichhave used every opportunity to slow down the process, as they had no incentives to "give up theirturf" to the municipalities.

The speed of decentralization reforms greatly accelerated during 2004, as the Ministry of LGUmoved forward with a number of initiatives and intensified its contacts with the Association of LGU(known by its Macedonian acronym ZELS). The Program of 1999 set out the activities for the imple-mentation of the decentralization process in the period 2004-2007 and was adopted by theGovernment in November 2004. These activities are related to the transfer of competencies, employ-ees, equipment and property from the central to the local level and to capacity building in the munic-ipalities to enable them to successfully take over the devolved competencies.

2.1. Legal framework

What the legal framework in Macedonia defines as decentralization is in fact devolution, i.e. that elect-ed local officials are given power and resources to make decisions about the provision of public services.

Functional decentralization, i.e. the devolution of competencies, is left to the sectoral laws in Mace-donia while the fiscal decentralization framework, including the inter-governmental transfers, is definedin the Law on Financing LGU (LFLGU).

2.2. Territorial organisation

With the Law on Territorial Organization being adopted in 2004, the local governments in Macedoniawere restructured into 84 municipalities (15 of which have less than 5,000 inhabitants) and with theCity of Skopje as a special unit. Many of the LGU, after one year, are facing the fact that they do nothave the capacity to provide the necessary and expected services to their citizens. This is generallycaused by a lack of economy of scale due to their limited size or by limitations in their capacitybecause of under-investment, low regional development, etc.

3. ASSIGNMENT OF COMPETENCES

The Law on LGU regulates the competencies of the local governments. A wide range of responsi-bilities are listed in the provisions of Article 22 of the Law. The role of local governments and the cen-tral government are well defined.

3.1. Subsidiarity principle

The European Charter for Local Self-Government includes among its provisions the subsidiarityprinciple in Paragraph 3 of Article 4:

"Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which areclosest to the citizen. Allocation of responsibility to another authority should weigh up the extent andnature of the task and requirements of efficiency and economy."

Basically the provision of services should be exercised at the lowest possible level of governmentthat is capable of providing them efficiently. This principle results in a situation where, as far as pos-sible, the area which benefits from a government service coincides with the territorial boundaries ofthe level of government which provides the service.

72

Relying on this principle, it can generally be concluded that three types of functions are best per-formed by the Central Government:

1. Provision of public goods and benefits that benefit entire country2. Income redistribution by social policies3. Activities that involve spill-over or externalities between local governments

The income redistribution programmes cannot be provided effectively by the local governments be-cause:

1) Differences between local governments cannot be addressed; 2) Wealthy households and companies have the incentive to move away from an area where the

local government attempts to undertake income redistribution;3) Local governments may produce inefficient levels in certain public services if these activities

involve spill-over effects into neighbouring local government areas.

This means that there basically are two dimensions of the subsidiarity principle which are relevantto Macedonia:

1) The size of the local governments; 2) The competences assigned to the local governments.

Conducting an analysis of the optimal minimum size of local governments is a difficult task becauseone has to measure the output of all services and their benefits. Empirical analyses show that the min-imum size for an effective municipality might be between 5,000-8,000 citizens.

In analyzing the economies of scale in the administrative costs of local governments (CEA bulletin2004 covering 123 local governments at that time), a composite index is calculated from three variables:

1. Number of employees in the administration per inhabitant;2. Salaries as a percentage of total expenditures;3. Total municipal budget expenditure per inhabitant.

The calculated administrative cost composite index for each of the 123 local governments inMacedonia is illustrated in the next figure.

Figure 1.Economies of scaleof administrativecosts at LGUin Macedonia

73

Overall the figure shows that the greater the number of citizens in a local authority area implieslower average administrative costs. More specifically, the figure illustrates the increasing economiesof scale of up to 4,000-6,000 inhabitants. Furthermore, the figure shows that the optimal minimal sizeof local government in Macedonia is around 6,000 inhabitants if the criterion is the cost of providingadministrative services.

3.2. Competences assigned and expenditure arrangements

Monitoring of the process of decentralisation is conducted by the DWG, which has operatedthrough ten thematic Sub-Groups. The Sub-Groups have established Action Plans which set out therisks identified related to the competences that have been transferred to the local level. The generalconclusion is there is a lack of financial resources for the reassigned competencies. For this reasonassessment and cost analysis must be carried out before any further transfers are made.

One risk identified was the transfer of to little finance from central to local government to providethe assigned service. This situation could be improved by using the "principle of neutrality of ear-marked transfer" i.e. that the central government transfers funding to the local government at the samelevel that it had previously cost the central government to provide the service. An example of this prob-lem can be seen in the case of the Ministry of Education and Science where the transfers to local gov-ernment in 2005 were less than it had spent in the previous fiscal year in providing the now assignedservices

3.3. Deconcentration and Decentralisation

The Government adopted the Detailed Plan for Transfer of Competences and Resources in April2005 in which administrative decentralisation was planned in terms of transfer of institutions, assets,employees and documentation. In the Plan, the deconcentrated units of the line ministries were to betransferred to the local level.

This, together with the new legislation provided an efficient legal framework for the process ofdecentralization. However problems with transfer of staff and resources still remain. These problemswere identified by the Sub-Groups of DWG.

3.4. Overall assessment

Macedonia is no exception in making the mistake of defining the assignments and not calculatingthe costs of conducting the competencies assigned to the lower level of government. This is not sobad provided the central government identifies the under-funding during implementation and thenmakes the right decisions to deal with the problems. So far central government does not appear tohave made sufficient effort to resolve the disparity between expenditure and revenue. Therefore, localgovernments are forced either to provide services of lower quality or to build up further arrears whichin the long run lead to further under-investment in capital projects.

One interesting example is the Municipality of Veles where an analysis of the school system wasundertaken which resulted in some schools being closed. This is positive because the local govern-ment was thinking in terms of improved efficiency.

74

Given the fact that some LGU in Macedonia are too weak to provide the assigned competencies toits citizens, it is worthwhile to consider the possibility of an asymmetric assignment of functionalresponsibilities. This should be based on firm analysis which in turn would require a strengthening ofthe analytical capacity within the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of LGU.

It is difficult to judge whether or not local governments in Macedonia provide a sufficient quality ofservice given the environment in which they operate and the short period of review to date.

The financing of services provided by local governments should follow a function, i.e. for eachassigned responsibility there must be revenue assigned as well. If this rule is not followed, then thelevel of revenue transfer from central to local government should increase. In order to establish theexact current status within the system there must be a strong central ability to monitor and evaluatethe process of decentralization. For that purpose and in accordance with the LFLGU, a Commissionfor Monitoring of the Development of the System for Financing has been established.

Given the discussion above and considering the report of the Commission, one gets the impres-sion that the report contains little information on the problems encountered and lacks a sufficiently in-depth analysis of different aspects including:1. Fiscal gap (needs assessment and fiscal capacity calculation) in providing local services for

competencies that have been transferred2. The problems with collection of own revenues by local governments (taxpayers' record transfer,

development and distribution of tax returns system, etc).3. Current status and measures to improve the situation regarding arrears4. Whether earmarked grants are in line with the transferred competencies5. The tendency to discuss problems at DWG-level without information being transferred to lower

levels afterwards.6. Financial management issues related to local governments appear to have been addressed.7. In dealing with the legal framework it appears that a list of problems identified and options for their

resolution is required.8. To clarify the VAT transfer as a source of stable financing for local government. 9. The results that have been brought about by the Law on Local Self-Government through the imple-

mentation of fiscal decentralization. The main points being the criteria that were taken into accountand the measurable indicators that were monitored and, in general, how the assessment of a "goodresult" was made.

10. The report itself is not fully up-to-date given that it only covers the period up to December 2005.It was adopted June 2006.

4. OWN REVENUES

The major change brought about by the new legislation was the assignment of property-related taxadministration to the local level. Moreover, it is not only the revenue from these taxes that is assignedto local governments but the powers to determine the rate for these taxes and to collect them. By uti-lizing the possibility of inter-municipal cooperation, local governments can contract joint tax adminis-tration or one local government can contract out the tax administration to another local government.

Reportedly, the Public Revenue Office (PRO) has used low-quality data from the cadastre systemfor property taxes and lacks a good statistical information system. Moreover, these revenues were notdirectly distributed to the local governments where they were collected but rather transferred into the

75

treasury system and then distributed among local governments in accordance with a formula withinthe so-called "cap system". Clearly, there were no proper incentives for higher collection rates so thatthe system can provide a sustainable and predictable revenue stream.

Table 1. Size of LGU Revenues

Source: Author�s Calculation

4.1. Structure - types of own revenues

The sources of financing in accordance with the LFLGU identifies both own and shared sources offinancing.

Own Source Revenues:

1. Own Source Revenues a. Local taxes (property tax, transfer of property tax, inheritance tax and gift tax)b. Local fees (communal fees, administrative fees) c. Local charges (construction land charges, communal activity charges, spatial planning

charges)d. Revenues from property (rents, interests, capital revenues from property sale)e. Donationsf. Finesg. Self contributions

2. Donations (a contract between the donor and the mayor following approval by the municipal council)

3. Self contributions (a municipal council decision defines all related variables)

Shared revenues:

4. Personal Income Tax (PIT) revenues a. 3% of PIT collections from salaries are allocated to the local government where the

employee resides. The employer is responsible for paying the PIT on behalf of the employee. The transfer goes through the treasury system automatically, leaving no room for discretionary decisions by the central government.

b. 100 % PIT collected from artisan activities.

An issue is that the wording of the LFLGU is such that it defines the PIT and VAT transfers3 as ownrevenues of local governments. However:

1. The transfers from VAT and PIT generally are not enough to cover the fiscal gap arising from the provision of transferred competencies

Total revenues as % of GDP

Bulgaria 2005 6.2

Romania 2003 6.9

Macedonia 2004 2.4

3) More on the VAT transfers see in the section of inter-governmental transfers.

76

2. The central government sees the VAT as an unconditional transfer for equalisation purposes even though it is defined in the LFLGU as an own revenue for local governments. In contrast ZELS views VAT as a kind of unconditional transfer with the comment that central government should introduce a new equalisation transfer

4.2. Sufficiency

Common wisdom is that the total revenues of local governments should be enough to cover theprovision of services to citizens and to pay for capital investments. In Macedonia, it is difficult to judgeif the current system is sufficiently well established to provide that given that no comprehensive analy-sis has been done on costs of providing local services including possible capital needs. Indicative inthis regard are four main issues:

! The centralised system until 2005 has led to under-investment by local government and it should be realised that there will be high capital requirements and demand in near and distant future

! The requirements stemming from EU-related legislation on environmental protection, quality and standards of services, etc.

! The issue of viable size of local governments! Expected increase in public awareness and expectation

These four issues alone should be sufficient to alert the central Government that the current sys-tem of revenues (own and transfers from the central level) is likely to be insufficient in the mid andlonger terms. This is a further compelling argument for the building of a strong analytical unit withinthe Ministry of Finance and Ministry of LGU to develop and utilise an extensive data system.

4.3. Principles for own revenues

The system of own revenues is now analyzed and some principles are set out:

1. Local government should be allowed to set tax rates.2. The tax base should be relatively immobile.3. The taxes raised should be borne primarily by local residents.

The above three principles relate to property taxes and, given that the Law on Property Tax allowslocal governments to set tax rates so it can be said that a degree of fiscal autonomy has been secured.

4. The tax yield should be adequate to meet local public spending requirements.

In Macedonia, the share of own revenue in relation to the total revenue is low and thus there is highlevel of fiscal dependency (transfers over total revenues).

5. The tax yield should be able to grow in response to increases in spending requirements withoutaltering tax rates.

The need for changes in the tax base and rates can be a result of inflation, growth of the nationaleconomy, population growth or income changes of the population. In Macedonia, the exemptions forbusiness-related property taxes should be abolished. The central Government should provide othermeasures to attract businesses without causing a lower level of tax base for the local governments.

77

6. The tax yield should be predictable and not prone to substantial variations from year to year.

The property taxes are easily predictable.

7. The tax should be easy (not overly costly) to administer fairly.

In theory, property taxes are easy to administer once a proper system for registration and monitor-ing is established.

8. The tax should be considered fair by taxpayers.

One criterion is whether wealthier taxpayers pay more than poor taxpayers, i.e. equity judged on thebasis of ability to pay. An alternative criterion focuses on whether those taxpayers who derive greaterbenefits from public services pay more than persons receiving lower levels of benefits. These two cri-teria can lead to conflicting conclusions regarding the equity of a local tax instrument. However, it istoo early to debate the fairness of the tax system in Macedonia.

4.4. Local administration of transferred revenue tasks

The first initiatives taken by the local level to establish its own system of property tax illustrats theinitial, not so positive approach to development of the system. Some local governments announcedthe start of their own revenue collection and addressed the taxpayer with the following:

1. An announcement in the old-fashioned way informing citizens that if they do not comply then the penalty provisions will become operational

2. No explanation to the citizens how the system would operate3. No information provided to the citizens4. Use of outdated data in the system (old title of ownership of the asset)5. Immediately reaction by Central Government as to what local governments can and cannot do6. Traditional expectations that everything should be regulated (tendency for overregulation)

Shortcomings observed in the Law on Property Tax are the self-assessment of the value by theowner, the lack of a well developed database of taxpayers and of a sound system of monitoring.


The overall assessment is that the property tax system in Macedonia is performing poorly and isin serious need of improvement.

Box 1. Bringing services closer to the citizens or not: Case study on tax administration in LGU Aerodrom.

The LGUs in Macedonia administer property taxes and have the authority to set the tax rate.

Current situation and procedure for a taxpayer to register new property(Interview with an accountant from Skopje).

There is an office in LGU Aerodrom related to the tax issues. Should a taxpayer want to register property for thepurpose of property tax, the employees in the office just tell the potential taxpayer that he has to go to the PRO

78

What now remain are problems that can be solved easily, for example:

1. The transfer of the record of property taxpayers from the devolved public revenue offices to the PRO2. Given the low initial base for the devolved taxes, it will help to increase the property tax collec-

tions in medium term after devolution3. This initial momentum should not create space for comfort and allow local governments to for-

get the need for further development of the revenue system in the areas of assessment, audit, col-lection and monitoring

4. For local citizens to see progress that is meaningful to them, mayors and council members needto be able to see beyond the appointment of a primary accountant or the transfer of staff from the PRO(see the box above)

5. Self assessment of the tax base requires a strong system of monitoring6. Building database of taxpayers7. Building efficient tax administration8. Increase in the tax effort

5. INTER-GOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS

The nature and implications of inter-governmental transfer mechanisms can differ substantially.This section, as the ones before, presents a framework for evaluating different mechanisms.

office located in the centre of Skopje to submit the documents for registering a new property. The informationon the registration has to be typed and returned by the PRO office to the LGU Aerodrom from where the taxreturn is finally issued. It can be seen from this example that nothing has really changed for a citizen by way ofimproved services through the devolution of the tax administration. Devolution has complicated the procedure,has created confusion and imposed additional transaction costs. The new system is likely to hamper the com-pliance of potential taxpayers.

One set of improvements might be:1. The LGU Aerodrom prints information about property taxpayers and provides proper guidelines for citizens onthe tax procedure. The guidelines should include the new rules the benefits for the citizen will get. The guide-lines should be placed where it is easily available for everyone who is interested.2. Window halls in the PRO should be marked so that a citizen can see which services are provided at eachwindow.3. Information should be also distributed with the local newspaper of the LGU Aerodrom. 4. The LGU should not require the taxpayer to go to the Skopje PRO office but should accept the taxpayers'documents.5. The LGU should collect such documents daily or weekly and forward them to the Skopje PRO (this might bedone via e-mail as well).6. The LGU should introduce a phone "hot line" for the taxpayers.7. The LGU should change the working hours to suit the taxpayers and not close the office at 14:00 hours.

The above are the preliminary steps that the LGU can take in order to:1. Explain the benefits of decentralization2. Explain why taxes should be paid3. Bring decentralization closer to its citizens4. Ensure future participation by citizens 5. Increase compliance and decrease tax evasion6. Increase revenue collection7. Increase the tax effort

79

5.1. Structure - types of transfers

The phased approach to fiscal decentralization is closely connected with the inter-governmentaltransfers. The process of fiscal decentralization is envisaged by the LFLGU to evolve in two phases(for details see Annex 3). The first phase started 1 July 2005 with the introduction of the earmarkedgrants. The second phase will start upon fulfillment of certain conditions. It is in this phase that blocktransfers will start to be distributed. The major principle of this phased approach is to allow a gradualdevolution of responsibilities in line with the demonstration of greater capacity by local governmentsto undertake those responsibilities, and to provide an equitable and adequate transfer of funds for anefficient and ongoing execution of transferred competencies.

The LFLGU envisions the following channels of transfers from the central Government:1. VAT revenues (total fund equal to 3 % of the VAT collections in the previous fiscal year). This

unconditional grant will be distributed by a formula with at least 50 % according to population and notmore than 50 % according to other criteria. These other criteria will be stipulated in a methodology tobe defined by the government in agreement with the Commission for Monitoring of the Developmentof the Financing System. The proposal for the following fiscal year has to be prepared by 30th Juneof the current year. The methodology makes separate provisions for the City of Skopje.

2. Earmarked transfers of specific grants for operational costs in the areas of education, culture andsocial policy. The appropriate ministries and agencies monitor the use of the earmarked funds.

3. Capital transfers. (In accordance with programs specified by the Government.)4. Block transfers. (In accordance with article 22 paragraphs 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Law on LGU); the

appropriate ministries and agencies are responsible for defining the methodology and criteria to beused in the transfer formula.

5. Funds received for delegated competencies. In this case the amount of funds is determined byway of a contract signed by the mayor of the local government and the appropriate ministry respon-sible for the competency.

The Bureau for Underdeveloped Regions and the off-budget Road Fund components to providetransfers are still in place. There is an urgent need for evaluation of their cost effectiveness andwhether they should be consolidated in the line with the new draft Law on Balanced RegionalDevelopment.

5.2. Vertical equalisation

Both central and local governments are required to provide public services. It is common to findthat the own-source revenue raising powers of local governments are insufficient to meet the costs ofproviding the services they have been assigned. The resulting gap can be filled only by increasing localrevenue raising powers or by increased transfers. For reasons that include concern for macroeconom-ic stabilization, the lack of appropriate local revenue bases, and the low capacity to administer taxeslocally, transfer mechanisms may be the more suitable way to achieve vertical equalization.

Related to the salaries for transferred staff, the Government has yet to formulate plans for 2007about when the LGU will be required to pay the staff directly.

The procedures for calculating the earmarked grants are related to the budget process and thebudget circular. However, the view of the Ministry of Finance is that even though the procedure for dis-tributing the amount to the LGU is transparent for the education sector (by students), it is based onhistorical costs and there are indications of substantial under-funding. The situation is similar in the

80

culture sector. The earmarked grants for the social sector and the kindergartens are found to be suf-ficient.

5.3. Horizontal equalisation and equity

There are often wide differences in the ability of local governments to mobilize resources acrosslocalities. If only local taxes were available to finance local services, there would be substantial inter-jurisdictional differences in the quantity and quality of public services. Inter-governmental transferscan be used to help equalize those differences. The conflicting views concerning the VAT transfer werediscussed earlier. ZELS and the Government should first agree if this is an equalization fund, and, if itis, then this should be stated clearly in the LFLGU. It then needs to be decided how to proceed withthe two steps in its implementation:

1) The estimation of the total pool; 2) The formula.

In this regard, it is strongly recommended to include a formula in the law for calculation of fiscalcapacity of local governments.

The equity criterion relates directly to the issue of horizontal equalization. The criterion is complexsince it commonly involves a combination of factors that are not easily measured. Transfer systemsshould distribute resources between local governments in a manner that accounts for differences bothin the expenditure needs (providing more to those with greater need where the need factor includesvariations in the unit cost of producing public services) and in the fiscal capacity (providing less tothose with greater capacity). Specifically, it should attempt to decrease or equalize these differences.

5.4. Revenue adequacy and growth

The objective of revenue adequacy and growth is obviously related to the ability of a transfer sys-tem to meet local spending needs, both at present and as those needs increase in the future.

5.5. Predictability, simplicity and transparency

The desires for predictability, transparency, and simplicity are closely intertwined. Fiscal planningrequires there is a reasonable degree of certainty associated with the flow of resources from the cen-tre, including its timing. This means that it is desirable for local governments to have a general idea ofhow much money they are likely to receive from their various sources of revenue when they begin theplanning and budgeting process for the following year. Similarly, it is important that the transfers allo-cated to localities actually are distributed on a timely basis for use at the local level.

Local officials should be able to ascertain how their share of a particular transfer was determined.This understanding is facilitated by use of relatively simple but explicit formulas. This requires that therequisite data is available to be used in a formula.

5.6. Allocative efficiency

Allocative efficiency means that the resources are allocated to those services that are most need-ed at the local level. Grant systems should not distort local fiscal choices. This means that grants

81

should not influence how local governments allocate their resources across sectors or in terms of itschoice of how to combine factors of production. For example, a transfer limited to investment inrebuilding roads can discourage local governments from maintenance of existing roads. In the pres-ence of jurisdictional spill-over these guidelines will need to be modified in order to achieve an effi-cient allocation of resources from the national level.


Local governments are likely to view the transfers as substitutes for their own resources and todecrease their efforts at raising local revenues. Also, since the existing public infrastructure is a partof the resources that must be "managed" by local governments, grant systems can have an adverseeffect on the willingness of local governments to maintain such infrastructure. In Macedonia, the sys-tem of capping own revenues provided no incentives for greater fiscal efforts and public infrastructurewas maintained by transfers from the line ministries and in the case of the communal services, fromuser charges. The cap system had adverse effect on the fiscal effort, the transfers from the line min-istries were not transparent and the communal services continue to face revenue collection problems.This is a difficult situation and the new system which abolishes the old cap system for own revenuesand introduces earmarked grants, is expected to improve the situation.

As for the grants, if they are to be systematically distributed to local governments, several policydecisions need to be made. These include:

! determination of the grant pool, i.e. how much will be available to be distributed to local councils;

! the method used to allocate that pool across all eligible local governments ! the degree of restrictions associated with how the grant funds can be spent by local

governments.

In the next table, the typology of grants is utilized to discuss the Macedonian context for PIT andVAT transfers.

Table 2. Typology of grant programs

Source: Bahl & Linn 1992.

The advantage of A-type is because it is a pure shared tax, it is certain and it simplifies the fiscalplanning of the local governments. Further, it is not conditional and it can increase the fiscal autono-my. Sharing gives the local governments an income and inflation elastic tax base. The disadvantageis that it is an inflexible solution because it is difficult to change the percentages once they have beenestablished, and thus the vertical balance. This might be important in the Macedonian context with its

Method of determining the total divisible pool

Methods of allocating the divisible pool Law decision

among local governments Sharing (Ad hoc decision) Reimbursement

Origin of collection A N/A N/A

Formula B F N/A

Total or partial reimbursement C G K

Ad hoc D H N/A

82

high economic uncertainty (prices of energy, weak economy, high unemployment etc). Another dis-advantage is that the A-type does not provide equalization and in principle increases inequality. All inall, PIT-sharing is beneficial given the current level of tax administrative capacity at local level. The per-centages can and should be revised after a comprehensive analysis of the fiscal gap and verticalimbalance is done. Higher percentages can provide greater incentives for compliance by the taxpay-ers and to decrease tax evasion if the taxpayers can consider it as "own".

The PIT tax, even though considered as an own tax for the local governments, is actually a sharingtype-A because:

1) The local governments have no control over determination of the rate and base; 2) The allocation is based on the origin of collection.

As for the VAT grants, the total divisible pool is shared and the allocation is by formula and thus itis a B-type grant. The VAT formula-based grant is transparent but the lack of timely and adequate datato be included in the allocation formula is a serious deficiency.

The way the formula is stated in the law at present makes it difficult to see what the CentralGovernment is trying to achieve. Is it to equalize the fiscal capacity, to reduce the disparities in pro-viding public services or to encourage a local government to mobilize its own resources? This confu-sion should be resolved as soon as possible. Also, the number of population requirements within thelaw for the VAT distribution formula (at least 50 % of the weight) probably shows the weakness of thestate statistical system and lack of data (the population data being most credible).

Box 2. Examples of intergovernmental transfers based on non transparency, often according to the gov-ernment majority at the central level, the political party to which a mayor belongs and to different regional-ly based lobby groups.

The aim of this box is to present some negative practices that might impact on the credit rating of a LGU.

The bases for intergovernmental transfers are determined in the laws: the Law on the Government of theRepublic of Macedonia (Official Gazette of the RM No 12/03, 55/03); the Law on Execution of Budget of theRepublic of Macedonia (adopted each year and for 2006 published in the Official Gazette of the RM as No120/05), the Law on Public Roads (Official Gazette of the RM No 26/96, 40/99, 96/00, 29/02 and 68/04); the Lawon Environment (Official Gazette of the RM No 53/05, 81/05); Law on Organization and Operation of the StateAdministration Bodies (Official Gazette of the RM No.58/00); Law on Stimulation of the Development of theEconomically Underdeveloped Regions (Official Gazette of the RM No. 2/94 and 39/99); the Law on Limiting theOriginal Revenues for Financing the Public Needs (adopted every year); the Law on Financing the LGU and otherbylaw acts.

Examples:

1. According to the Decision for distribution of assets for the building of water supply and drainage systemsin Republic of Macedonia in 2006, the Government (Ministry of Transport and Communications) distributedaround 2 million euros allocated as capital subsidies to the LGU, under program 35 - water supply system at LGU.The assets were distributed unfairly and opaquely, without any agreed criteria and favouring municipalities whosemayors are a member of one of the governing parties at central level. The mayors and ZELS have reacted to thiskind of distribution.

2. According to the Law on Public Roads, based on the Annual program for building, reconstruction, mainte-nance and protection of the national and regional roads in the Republic of Macedonia, the municipalities and theCity of Skopje, were provided with around 8 million euros as capital transfers for local roads and streets for 2006.

83

Source: Interview with a Mayor from Macedonia and active member of ZELS bodies.

6. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The financial management at LGU level is regulated primarily by the LFLGU, the Law on Budgets,the Law on Budget Accounting and Budgetary Beneficiaries, and Law on Public Procurement.

In the latest regulations on the criteria for the distribution of assets, the criteria were changed. Whereas in previ-ous years the main criteria were the number of registered motor vehicles, fuel consumption and the length of thelocal roads and streets, the latest criteria introduced were the number of citizens and the municipality area. Thisresulted in significant redistribution of the assets with drastic reductions in the case of some municipalities. Thisresulted in serious problems brought about by the sudden change in the system. Such problems include dam-aged road networks, the rapid deterioration of the road network, and municipalities being unable to get otherresources for maintenance. Another problem is the inadequate total sum of assets for distribution. The total suminstead of being increased in line with increased revenue from excise duties on oil derivates, vehicle registra-tion tax and motorway tax, has remained the same or has actually decreased.

3. In 2006 only around 1 million euros were allocated for financing projects based on the Program for invest-ment in the environment for 2006. Although the environment should be the top priority, the Republic of Macedoniasets only symbolic sums for this purpose. A large amount of finance is needed to provide for the acceptance andtreatment of solid waste and the building of drainage and collector networks and waste water treatment plants.

4. Typical was the improper distribution of part of the assets from the privatization of the MacedonianTelecommunications that was made by the Government of Republic of Macedonia in April 2001. In this case someof the municipalities were granted over 5,000,000 euros, and in other municipalities, where the mayor was fromthe opposition parties, no grant was made.

5. A similar case was the distribution of the assets from the "Program for granting finances for investmentprojects in the economic and non-economic infrastructure and for equity investment in financing individual invest-ment projects in the economy". These assets were distributed through the Bureau for EconomicallyUnderdeveloped Regions which is a part of the Ministry of LSG. The decisions made were opaque and greatlyinfluenced by the political elites and lobby groups.

6. Here are some more examples of the unfair treatment of LGU by the Government of Republic of Macedonia.a) The Government of Republic of Macedonia made reforms to ARM for it to adjust to the standards of NATO.

Many of the assets that were used by the army, eg barracks, and living quarters of ARM, were given to a fewmunicipalities without any compensation and part of that property was sold without any explanation. In addition,the privileged municipalities gained very valuable property without compensation, sometimes to the extent of mil-lions of euros even though these were built by the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia.

b) The Government of Republic of Macedonia without any public procedure made decisions on contracts giv-ing motor vehicles to some municipalities before the end of the government mandate in August 2006. The munic-ipalities involved included Gostivar, Cair, Oslomej and Kumanovo. This brought these municipalities into a privi-leged position compared with the rest of the municipalities.

c) Typical is the disrespect of articles in the Law on financing LGU for capital subsidies. The Law defines cap-ital subsidies as a subsidies aimed at financing the municipality projects that require capital investments. Suchsubsidies are used according to the program determined by the Government based on proposals made by theauthorized ministries and funds. In addition, priority should be those projects that have fully planned financialassets.

d) The inconsistency of the Government and disrespect for the articles is evident because the Government hasnot met the deadlines and has not decentralized capital investments in the education sector. There is no logicalexplanation for this, other than the mistrust of the LGU and the need for the Ministry of Education to maintain con-trol. Instead the Government has managed the expenditure by inviting tenders and issuing contracts at a statelevel.

84

6.1. Budgeting

The LFLGU outlines a modern type of LGU budget by separating capital and operational budget("general budget" and "special budget"). However, the building of performance budgeting is far awayeven though piloting of performance measurement in transferred competencies was introduced insome LGUs although this activity was mainly donor driven.

The LGU budget for each year is passed by the Council of the municipality, pursuant to a proposalfrom the Mayor, not later than 31st December of the preceding year. If the Municipal Council fails topass the Budget for any reason whatsoever during this predetermined period of time, the Council isobliged to pass a decision on temporary financing - including a financial plan for implementing tem-porary financing for the first quarter of the coming year. The Municipal Budget is prepared in accor-dance with the Law on Budgets and guidelines drafted by the Minister of Finance. The Budget oughtto be balanced, meaning that it cannot have a budgetary deficit. Within fifteen days of the Budget beingapproved, the municipality is obliged to submit it to the Ministry of Finance so that it may be exam-ined in light of the country's overall public expenditures. In approving the Budget, a municipality mustpass a decision to implement that Budget. It is important to emphasize that finances must be spentfor specific purposes and in accordance with the amounts determined in the Budget. The budgetingprocess should start no later than 30th September each year. By this date, the Minister of Financeshould have prepared and submitted a budgetary circular to inform the municipalities of all economicindicators, detailing the main directions for preparing the Budget, describing the resources that are tobe transferred from the national budget to the municipality, and to inform the municipality about vari-ous other possible sources of income. Budgeting proceeds in phases and in terms set in a budgetarycalendar, as approved by the Municipal Council. The Mayor provides the budget beneficiaries withdirections for the preparation of the Municipal Budget. After preparing their plans, beneficiaries shouldsubmit their financial plans to the Mayor, who then submits the budget proposal to the MunicipalCouncil.

It is encouraging that in Macedonia there are elements of citizen participation related to the budgetprocess in some LGU. The assessment by the Ministry of Finance is that this is on the right track butwhat should be further developed is a strong civil sector so that such initiatives are not only encour-aged by the government (at both levels) but also by the citizens.

The benefits of citizen participation during the budget process can best be achieved if preliminaryinformation on the budget is available to all interested parties, alongside a public appeal procedurewherein all interested individuals can submit their opinions. Additionally, these benefits can beachieved through organizing public forums to discuss the draft budget - in urban communities,amongst associations of citizens, within educational and social welfare institutions, and through cul-tural and sports institutions, etc. Once public discussions have been conducted, and useful propos-als incorporated into the text of the budget proposal, it is submitted to the Council. If it happens dur-ing the fiscal year that revenues and expenditures are not in accordance with the budget plan, theMayor may propose a re-balancing of the budget to the Municipal Council, whereby amendments andchanges to it can be made.

As part of the budget execution it is advanced management to compare the actual with the budget-ed expenditures and to calculate the variances through the use of other analytical techniques for thepurpose of budget control. The best method is to have a transparent procedure for revenue projection.

85

The revenues should be tracked by budget source and compared with the projected income. This isimportant as politicians may overestimate when faced with hard decisions regarding spending.

6.2. Accounting

The LGU and the public services keep accounting records in accordance with the Law on BudgetAccounting and Budgetary Beneficiaries, consistent with generally accepted accounting principles,practices and standards, and in keeping with international accounting standards for the public sector.The Mayor places an accountant in charge (he or she must be a graduate of economics with at leastfive years of working experience in the field of financing) who, alongside the Mayor is responsible forthe legality of municipal accounting.

Still the LGU are using cash accounting with all its limitations (apart for its simplicity) such as notadequately recording the liabilities, future services, recognition of services and goods received whichare not yet paid.

6.3. Treasury management

There is a single treasury system, so that, in principle, the government knows at all times the aggre-gate amount of resources available in the Treasury. The Ministry of Finance also has developed a man-ual on treasury management for the LGU. This means that, although individual local governmentsmaintain records of their own finances, their accounts are actually under the control of the central gov-ernment. This, in turn, can constrain local fiscal flexibility.

6.4. Reporting

The LGU in accordance with the LFLGU prepare internal financial reports on a monthly basis and pre-pare quarterly reports to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry has prepared guidelines for the LGU onhow to report, including arrears, borrowing, financial planning, etc. However, the quarterly reports areto be revised due to the daily input that the Treasury in the Ministry is now receiving on municipal budg-ets. Our recommendation is that the debt and guarantees report and the quarterly plan for the budgetexecution should remain and that all other reports are eliminated. This will reduce the workload of themunicipality and will help Ministry to introduce discipline on regular and accurate reporting.

This external reporting seems to be well regulated (around 50 out of 84 LGU are reporting regular-ly which is considered a success by the Ministry of Finance and as a good start) but the internalreporting is not yet strong. The most important thing for the reporting is to be accurate and timely, soto provide the required information and to function as a management tool. However, one must alsohave in mind that reporting should assist in fulfilling the LGU duty to be publicly accountable. Thisreporting should enable users to access that accountability, to evaluate the operating results and toassess the level of services that can be provided by the LGU..

6.5. Internal audit

Internal Audit is an assurance function that primarily provides an independent and objective opin-ion to the organization of the degree to which the internal control environment supports the achieve-ment of its objectives. Internal audit also seeks to help line management improve the internal controlenvironment in an organization.

86

The LGU are obliged to establish an internal auditing system and procedures consistent with inter-national standards for the performance of a professional audit acceptable to the Ministry of Finance.The internal auditor is appointed by the Municipal Council upon a proposal from the Mayor. The inter-nal auditor has an independent function and answers both to the Mayor and the Council. The externalaudit of financial accounts is carried out by the State Auditing Service. The Mayor has the responsi-bility to provide the State Auditing Service with a report on the implementation of the Budget, in addi-tion to a final accounting report, within 30 days of their completion.


The development of a modern financial management system at LGU level is something new inMacedonia. Given the good progress made in terms of preparing consolidated budgets by the LGUand in some elements of the budget planning and reporting, overall progress to date can be consid-ered as a success. This initial success is mostly because of the effort from the central level (Ministryof Finance) in preparing guidelines and providing training for the LGU. The Ministry of Finance alsoconsiders that donors have been helpful in this regard. Examples of instruments developed by theMinistry are modules for budgeting, supplementary budgeting, treasury plans and financial planning.

However, there are objective reasons (given the scale of the reforms) for possible concern as thestaff at LGU level needs further capacity building. Of particular importance is the building of planningcapacity especially related to decreasing the systematic error between the planned and realized budg-et. There are also "ethnic" issues as some LGU are requesting tax returns in two languages but thiswill require additional money, more staff and time for development.

In Macedonia, there is neither a law nor a separate regulation on LGU insolvency but LGU financialinstability is defined within the LFLGU. Financial instability in a municipality occurs if the state auditordetermines that there have been major irregularities in financial undertakings. Financial instability alsooccurs if the municipality account has been blocked for 30 consecutive days or if there have been 45days with interruptions occurring in a period of 60 days. Finally financial instability occurs in caseswhere the municipality fails to pay its debt within 90 days of its due date or if its approved loans lim-its are exceeded . In these circumstances, a special committee must be established to prepare a planof action to set measures for overcoming the financial instability.

The legal framework for the rights and obligations of participants involved in a process of publicprocurement is set in the Law on Public Procurement. An LGU is obliged to provide all bidders withan equal and non-discriminatory position in public procurement processes, with fair competition,transparency and exposure to public scrutiny.

7. BORROWING AT LGU LEVEL

7.1. Sources of financing of infrastructure projects

In Macedonia the 2002 Law on LGU designated some responsibilities of LGUs. These functionsremain in the central government domain, until the respective line ministries develop sectoral lawsspelling out the process of devolution of a particular function. Nowadays, since the line ministries havecompleted the devolution of designated functions to the local level, local government responsibilitiesare beyond the "municipal housekeeping," that is, they have responsibilities which require very sub-stantial capital investments.

87

The underlying purpose of the development of a municipal credit market is to increase the volumeof local capital investment to support essential municipal services. Well-designed investment and bor-rowing plans often can provide immediate finance the construction of infrastructure facilities that areneeded and then to repay the debt from the future earnings of the facilities themselves, through usercharges or through cost savings in service operations.

The next table illustrates the pros and cons of different sources of financing LGU projects.

Table 3. Sources of financing of infrastructure projects

Source: Felix Ejgel from S&P. Slight adaption by the author.

The next table illustrates the pros and cons for allowing LGU borrowing

Table 4. Pros and Cons for LGU borrowing

Source Pros Cons

Own resources Cheap Less predictable, rarely sufficient

Grants from EU and central governments Cheap Restriction on the use of funds, slow

pace of approval, strict control

MFO loans Long-term, grace periods, amortizing Foreign currency risk, restrictions on the

repayment use of funds

Domestic bank loans Local currency Short-term, restricted capacity

Bonds Diversity of investors, liquidity, Expensive depending on size,

depth of markets bullet repayments

Own sources or borrowings of enterprises No direct costs Contingent liabilities and more expensive

PFI/PPP deals No direct costs, more effective private Long-term agreement with

sector provision of services concessionaires, off-balance sheet risks

Investment banks and funds for LGU Deposit risk attenuation, lower interest rate,

possibility of contributing to capitalization

of the bank, LGU could provide guarantee

with their current revenues as well, the

Bank can provide consulting services to

the LGU as an auxiliary service

Pros

1. Inter-temporal equity, meaning that with the borrowing we

overcome the problem of inequitable burden costs among tax-

payers i.e. the borrowing promotes intergenerational equity by

having the generation of citizens that benefits from capital

facility's services pay for its construction;

2. Optimal allocation of resources, meaning that payments

from current users are partially used to repay the loan

because by financing a project through loan or through issuing

bonds most users will pay for the benefits either through local

taxes or directly through user charges;

Cons

1. The microeconomic con is in the potential indebtedness

that may lead in default of repayment of the loan and

decreasing the level of quality of provision of public services;

2. The macroeconomic con is that the LGU debt is added to

the overall national public debt that might become unsustain-

able;

3. The special danger might come from borrowing for cover-

ing current operating expenses and possible cash flow prob-

lems. This type of borrowing can lead to rolling over loans;

4. Borrowing can create a fiscal illusion that the voters/tax-

88

Source: Swianiewicz 2004.

7.2. Regulations on LGU borrowing in Europe

Within perfect capital market conditions, the market itself automatically regulates the financial dis-cipline. If the LGU debt becomes relatively high, high interest rates will sanction such behavior byrequiring a higher risk premium. However, the LGU market for borrowing is imperfect because of:

1. Asymmetric information i.e. the lenders do not have all the creditworthiness related informationabout the LGU;

2. Moral hazard problems i.e. the market expects that the LGU cannot go bankrupt and the centralgovernment will bailout the LGU.

3. Benefits from accelerated local development are higher than

the cost of borrowing. For example if a piece of land of inter-

est to investors have no good access to a road the LGU can

decide to borrow, to build the road and sale the land benefiting

from higher price of the land or higher rent for it. Here are also

other positive effects like higher employment, more tax rev-

enues, attracting other potential investors etc.;

4. Reduction of operational costs. This pro has the same logic

as the third one. Namely, if the LGU wants to improve the con-

dition with the public transportation by replacing old busses it

can do this either by replacing the buses one by one using the

current surplus from the budget or it can borrow and replace

more buses at once. The multiple positive effect is higher with

the second public choice because there are positive externali-

ties for the environment, health of citizens from lower level of

pollution, higher reliability of the vehicles, financial savings in

the cost of maintenance of the buses etc.;

5. There is a tendency that longer projects cost more. If the

projects are financed from the current revenues it will delay

the completion of the project which might lead to higher fixed

costs due to longer period of time for completing the project;

6. Access to grant from EU and other development funds but

the LGU will be required to participate in a matching funds

scheme and/or to cover all the costs of the project and than to

claim reimbursement after completion of the project;

7. Debt finance typically has a positive effect on municipal

planning and budgeting, financial management, capital invest-

ment planning, project management etc;

8. Borrowing allows a LGU to carry out a more ambitious cap-

ital program than otherwise would be possible.

h) Public illumination;

i) Sanitation;

j) Primary social assistance services for child

protection and for the elderly;

payers are over-demanding the public services sponsored by

borrowing and not by their tax effort;

5. Possible crowding out effect to potential private investors

since the LGU is more attractive to lend to;

6. The borrowing by the LGU can cause an upward pressure

of the interest rates;

7. The budget deficits at LGU can cause rising of inflation and

thus, increase of cost of capital i.e. interest rates;

8. Political cycle driven borrowing in order to please the elec-

torate.

89

Thus, it is more efficient to have well designed system for regulation of LGU borrowing. The prac-tice in different countries is illustrated in the Tables below.

Table 5. LGU borrowing regulations in Western Europe countries

Source: Swianiewicz 2004.

Norway

Denmark, UK, France, Spain

Switzerland

Denmark

UK

Germany

Switzerland

France

Italy

Spain

If the LGU presents an unbalanced current budget it will not

receive approval from the state regional commissioner. If a

deficit occurs, Norwegian LGU are required to repaid it within

two years.

There is no approval for the budget but there is compulsory

external audit. If a current deficit occurs it has to be paid

within the current fiscal year. Spain does not separate current

from capital budget.

If deficit occurs and the LGU has done nothing to avoid it, the

canton may impose compulsory increase in the LGU tax rate.

Also, the tax rate increase can be automatic if the deficit is

more than 3 % of the budget.

Based on borrowing control. Borrowing is prohibited but LGU

can receive permission to borrow for investments in public

utilities and/or in priority areas identified by the central gov-

ernment. Another waiver to the prohibition is the discretionary

permission for which the government announces an upper

limit each year. In this way the central government controls

the behavior of the LGU.

Based on borrowing control. Each LGU receives an individual

borrowing limit.

Based on four year financial plan prepared by the interested

for borrowing LGU.

Different across cantons. At one canton if a project cannot be

covered by annual budget it must go to local referendum.

Based on control of the level of indebtedness. The prefect

checks the level of LGU each year and if it is not in accor-

dance with the law the case is passed to the Regional Audit

Chamber-RAC. The current budget has to be higher than the

annual debt repayment. If the deficit exceeds 5 or 10 % of the

annual budget (depending on the size of the LGU) the RAC

proposes appropriate fiscal measures.

Based on borrowing control. Interest and capital payments

cannot exceed 25 % of the current revenues.

Based on borrowing control. Central government and regions

decide together about the annual limits of deficit and debt

level. No individual limits to LGU.

BORROWING FOR CURRENT EXPENDITURES

BORROWING FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

90

Table 6. LGU borrowing regulations in newly EU countries

Source: Caluseru and Johnson (2005, p.68)

Table 7. LGU borrowing regulations in Macedonia, Bulgaria and Romania

Macedonia Romania BulgariaFor capital or operating Both Both For investments onlypurposes?Limit of overall debt The total amount of short-term loans during The annual debt representing the due No limits on the size of the

the current fiscal year shall not exceed 20% installments deriving from contracted outstanding debt of localof realized total revenues of the current-ope- loans shall not exceed 30 % of the total governmentsrative budget of the Municipality in the current revenues of the local budget.preceding fiscal year. About the short term borrowing, theThe total amount of annual repayment of cash flow deficit shall not exceed 5 %long-term loans shall not exceed 15% of of the LGU budgeted revenues includingrealized total revenues of the current-opera- taxes, fees, contributions, othertive budget of the LGU in the preceding payments, other income and allocatedfiscal year. shares from the income tax.The total amount of the undue long termdebt of the LGU, including the issuedguarantees, shall not exceed the amountof the total revenues of thecurrent-operative budget of the LGU inthe preceding year.

Czech Rep. Estonia Hungary Poland Lithuania SlovakiaFor capital or Both Long-term - for Both Both Both For investments operating investments only, only.purposes? but no separation

of capital budget.Limit of overall No limit 60% of net revenues No limit 60% of total Borrowing cannot No limits but fromdebt (without state revenues exceed 10% of total 2005 - 60% of cur-

earmarked grants) revenue in approved rent revenues; state budget, sublimate or supported loans5% for short-term not includedloans

Limit of debt No limit 20% of net revenues Adjusted current 15% of total 10% of total No limits, but fromservice own revenues net revenues revenue excluding 2005 - 25% of

of short term earmarked grants revenues; statecommitments and support loans not liabilities included

Sanctions for not Not applicable Since 2003 - Effectively no Effectively no, but Effectively no Not applicablefollowing possibility to hold ex-ante control of

state fund transfers Regional AuditOffices

Any other Forecast balance Presentation of "Core properties" Limits applying Minister of Finance Ministry of Financeconditions sheet for 2-5 years; development plan; cannot be used as when public debt can impose lower ex-ante approval

internal audit; with guarantees by local collateral exceeds 50% GDP borrowing ceiling of credits oversome exceptions - govt. prohibited for individual muni- (approx.) 2 mlnguarantees by local cipalities based on USD is requiredgovt. prohibited budget performance.

Comments Limits were Debt of municipal Debt of municipal Debt of municipal Long- term credits Guarantees by localintroduced for short companies is not companies not companies is not must be approved governmentsperiods only no included in the limits included in the included in the limits by loan commission prohibitedlarger than 15% of limits (unless formal (unless formal of the MOEbudget revenues guarantees exist) guarantees exist)

91

Any other conditions The Municipality may borrow from abroad LGU must have approval of a 25% of own revenues andonly after an approval by the Government of Commission if maximum amount equalizing grantsthe Republic of Macedonia, under an opinion (periodically updated) will be exceeded.of the Ministry of finance. By the 15th of every month, borrowersThe domestic borrowings shall be in of funding in outstanding local publicdomestic currency. debt, including guarantor administrativeThe municipality shall not be allowed to units, shall report information on themortgage municipal property that serves for status of borrowing in the previousrealizing activities of public interest prescribed month, structured as required byby law. LGU Regularly submits positively MPF-developed norms.assessed financial reports during a period ofat least 24 months since implementation ofthe Law on financing the Local self govern-ments and has no arrears to creditors in thelast 2 years since implementation of the Lawon financing the Local self governments(before these deadlines the Municipality canborrow only after an approval by the Govern-ment and an consent by the Ministry for a bor-wing from international financing institutions.

Sanctions for not From the penalty provisions: the municipality Crimes: expenditure commitment, authorization If not followed than thefollowing if has incurred debts abroad, without previous and payment beyond the ceilings approved in municipality has no right to

consent of the Government, puts an asset of the budgets, expenditure commitments in the incur new debt orthe municipality, which is used for the budgets beyond the approved budget credit, guaranteesactivities of the municipality of public interest, use of local public borrowing proceeds forunder mortgage, uses the means from the other than the approved purposes, use ofshort-term loan for payment of penalties and erroneous data in preparing the backgroundpenalty interests, surpasses the limitation of documentation for authorization to borrow/20% from the realized total revenues of the guarantee borrowing, perform any financecurrent and operative budget of the munici- involving attributions during management ofpality in the previous fiscal year, according to the state of insolvency.a total short-term incurring debt during the Offences are introduced for noncompliance.fiscal year, payment of the long-term loan isnot conducted in equal or decreasingannuities, the municipality surpasses thelimitation of 15% of the total revenues of thecurrent and operative budget of the munici-pality in the previous fiscal year for the totalannual payment of the long-term loan, doesnot comply with the conditions for the amountof the total not received long-term loan, failsto submit the Loan Contract and compensa-tion plan, within ten working days, to theMinistry of Finance, fails to inform theMinistry of Finance for each paid installment,within a period of ten working days;

Any other conditions The municipality shall submit the Loan LGU must have approval of a Commission if The nominal value of theAgreement and the Terms of Redemption to maximum amount (periodically updated) will municipal guaranteesthe Ministry of Finance within 10 days of the be exceeded. By the 15th of every month, limited to 5% of ownday the Agreement has been signed. The borrowers of funding in outstanding local revenues and equalizingMunicipality shall inform the Ministry of Finan- public debt, including guarantor administrative grants. Limit on generalce about every installment payment regarding units, shall report information on the status of government debt of 60%the debt within 10 working days. The munici- borrowing in the previous month, structured of GDP.pality shall not be allowed to mortgage muni- as required by MPF-developed norms.cipal property that serves for realizing activi-ties of public interest prescribed by law. LGURegularly submits positively assessedfinancial reports during a period of at least24 months and has no arrears to creditors inthe last 2 years.

Source: Adopted from the regulations of the proper countries.

92

As of May 2004, the total outstanding LGU debt in Macedonia is estimated at around 47 millionsof euro or 1.4 % of the Macedonian GDP. This compares with the average of 5.6 % in the original 15EU member states (more in Schlumberger Sema 2004). The structure of local debt in Macedonia isas illustrated in the next table. It should be noted that these figures are arrears and not traditional debtin their nature. However, the LFLGU states in article 18 that all arrears which have been due for morethan 90 days will be counted as debt. The experience shows that if the LGUs put aside 15% from thecurrent-operating revenues for payment of their debts, 24 LGU (out of 84) will need more than 7 yearsto pay their debt and 10 municipalities will need more than 10 years.

Table 8. LSG debt structurein Macedonia in 2004

Source: Schlumberger Sema (2004).

A similar pattern of arrears as an issue for budget execution is also observed in Romania i.e. around70-80 % of the arrears are actually payment due to suppliers.

Most of the aggregate amount of debt (arrears) in Macedonia is concentrated in just ten LGU (72% of the total debt). As can be seen from the table, local debt is dominated by arrears to suppliers.Arrears represent a major problem and article 45 of the LFLGU requires that by the end of 2004, eachLGU should provide a plan for solving the outstanding debt that was accumulated prior to 31st ofDecember 2001. However, it appears that no effective resolution is available, although the problem isbeing considered by the government under the coordination of the Ministry of Finance.

The arrears will have a powerful impact on the creditworthiness of the Macedonian LGU and theircapacity to use credit instruments in their capital programs because this is a form of hidden operat-ing deficit.

According to the Ministry of Finance, since the start of decentralization, the LGU are graduallydecreasing the amount of arrears (Euro 24 millions at the end of 2005). 29 out of 84 LGU in this peri-od have reduced their stock of debt (arrears), one LGU has increased its debt and the remaining 55have not progressed in resolving this problem.

Recently a new Department for Debt Management (DDM) was established within the Ministry offinance The DDM is too remote to perceive the existing debt of the LGU as part of their competency,even though people from the budget department have asked for that. The main problem remains thegathering of the quarterly reports from all Municipalities by the Budget Department. The processingand reporting of the municipal real debt (meaning loans and securities) is a responsibility of the DDMand does not include the arrears. The DDM, according to the Law on public debt, has to agree to allinitiatives for borrowing by public institutions (including the municipalities) bearing in mind the debtmanagement strategy, annual borrowing limits and debt sustainability. Regarding agreement for bor-rowing by the Municipalities, coordination with the Budget Department is carried out. Sensitive to IMFcautiousness on level debt, the central Government might tend to become too demanding in seekinginformation from the LGUs.

Debt structure

Arrears toward construction enterprises 79 %

Restitution liabilities 9 %

Arrears toward Electric Power Company-ESM 7 %

Arrears upon salaries 2 %

Other current liabilities 3 %

93

Table 9. Stock of public debt of the Republic of Macedonia (GFS methodology)

(in millions of EUR) 2005 30/06/2006 31/07/2006 31/08/2006EXTERNAL PUBLIC DEBT* 1,441.16 1,219.60 1,216.36 1,214.08General Government Debt 1,245.35 1,037.70 1,030.65 1,030.98Central Government (consolidated) 1,245.35 1,037.70 1,030.65 1,030.98Central Government 1207.95 999.50 992.60 990.64Public Funds 37.40 38.20 38.05 40.34Municipalities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Central Bank 52.66 47.82 47.45 47.03Public enterprises 143.15 134.08 138.26 136.07

DOMESTIC PUBLIC DEBT 750.39 753.30 773.16 792.52General Government Debt 603.66 641.18 656.21 669.48Central Government Debt 603.46 640.98 656.01 669.28Structural bonds 533.50 512.00 511.07 510.85Stopanska Bank Rehabilitation Bond 26.61 21.29 21.29 21.29Small Bond 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Bond for selective credits 16.98 16.98 16.99 16.99Stopanska Bank Privatization Bond 77.24 72.95 72.95 72.95Bond for old foreign exchange savings 306.50 280.90 280.42 280.42Denationalisation Bond (I, II, III, IV and V issue) 106.16 119.87 119.42 119.21Continuous Government Securities 69.96 128.98 144.94 158.43o.w. Treasury bills for monetary purposes 0.00 43.64 64.50 80.84Municipalities 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20Central Bank 146.74 110.59 115.37 121.41Public enterprises** N/A 1.53 1.59 1.63

TOTAL PUBLIC DEBT-GFS 2,191.55 1,972.90 1,989.52 2,006.60GDP*** 4,522.00 4,840.10 4,840.10 4,840.10Average export*** 1,624.00 1,858.14 1,858.14 1,858.14External public debt as % of the public debt 65.76 61.82 61.14 60.50Domestic public debt as % of the public debt 34.24 38.18 38.86 39.50Public debt as % of average GDP 48.46 40.76 41.10 41.46Public debt as % of average export 134.95 106.18 107.07 107.99

General Government Debt-GFS 1,849.01 1,678.88 1,686.86 1,700.46External debt of the General Government as % 67.35 61.81 61.10 60.63of the General Government Debt

Domestic debt of the General Government as % 32.65 38.19 38.90 39.37of the General Government DebtGeneral Government debt as % of the average GDP 40.89 34.69 34.85 35.13General Government debt as % of the average export 113.86 90.35 90.78 91.51

Public debt calculated on the basis of thePublic Debt law**** 1,992.16 1,770.85 1,762.21 1,757.32External public debt as % of the public debt 69.70 66.17 66.33 66.41Domestic public debt as % of the public debt 30.30 33.83 33.67 33.59Public debt as % of average GDP 44.05 36.59 36.41 36.31 Public debt as % of average export 122.67 95.30 94.84 94.57

* Source: National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia/Ministry of Finance. Author's adoption.** Beginning April 2006 public enterprises started submitting to the Ministry of Finance reports on the stock of debt (according to

the Public Debt Law).*** Source: IMF tables (data for 2005 and 2006 are revised)****Total public debt excluding the debt of the monetary authority (IMF loans; CB bills and Treasury bills for monetary purpose)

94

The data on local debt consists only of debt incurred through loans and issuance of securities andexcludes the arrears (obligations towards suppliers that are due but not paid). Local debt represents0,01% of the total public debt (or 0.004% of the GDP), which is insignificant and shows that for thepurpose of debt sustainability analysis local debt can be neglected and cannot damage the whole sys-tem. If we include the arrears in the local debt figures, this represents 1.03% of the total public debt(or 0.47% of the GDP) which is still a very low share.

In most EU countries the local debt to GDP is on average 5 % of GDP which is quite low and in 11out of 15 EU countries the local debt to GDP ratio decreased between 1995 and 2000 (more inSwianiewicz 2004).

Table 10.Local expenditure/total public expenditures and local investments/total public investments

Source: Fiscal strategies of Ministry of Finance and budget of LGU for 2005 and 2006.

On an annual basis we can conclude that the Municipalities are becoming more active in the totalgeneral government expenditures, both for current and capital expenditure. But the fact that decentral-ization started in the middle of 2005, advises caution towards interpreting data for that year and to seehow 2006 will finish, as the execution of the general budget is turning out to be different from theplanned budget for both central and local government.

7.3. The LFLGU in Macedonia

The LFLGU establishes a budget of the current revenues and expenditures and a budget of the cap-ital revenues and expenditures.

The budget of the current revenues and expenditures consists of all revenues and expenditures,including the payment of interest on long-term borrowings but excludes capital donations, self-contri-bution revenues, revenues from property sales, block grants and borrowing inflows.

The Macedonian LFLGU prescribes the 20 % debt limitation for long term borrowing that mightprove inflexible in future. A good example is the case of EBRD investment in Romania where one LGUwas required to create a "reserve fund" equal to the amount of the annual debt service of the loan. Inthe case where the debt has been fully reimbursed during the year, it is questionable to have such aconservative debt limitation of 20 % for the Romanian LGU which they are required to keep the reservefund in the Treasury without bearing interest thus increasing the cost of financing. Following this prac-tice and the recent change in the Romanian legislation prescribing a 30 % limit of debt, perhaps thedebt limitations in Macedonia should be more flexible for the LGUs that have good creditworthinessindicators.

(in mill denar) 2005 2006Local expenditures 5003 8388Public expenditure 100206 107874Local expenditure/total expenditure (%) 4.99271501 7.77573836Local investments 2446 4482Public investments 10192 12976Local investments/public investments (%) 23.9992151 34.5406905

95

7.4. Net operating surplus at LGUs in Macedonia

The net operating result is simply the difference between an LGUs operating revenues and its oper-ating expenditures over a given time. If the result is positive and large enough to cover a local govern-ment's anticipated debt service payments, the LGU can be considered creditworthy. Conversely, if theresult is negative, or less than what is needed by a local government to cover its debt service pay-ments, then the LGU should not borrow and a bank should not lend even if the anticipated debt serv-ice payments are less than the statutory limit.

The operating revenues in Macedonia for an LGU are considered to be all revenues except for:! Projected savings from the operative revenues for financing of capital expenditures! Block grants from the budget of RM for financing of the capital investments! Revenues from property sale! Self-contribution revenues! Inflows from borrowing

Thus the revenues which are considered are from: property tax, communal fees, PIT and VAT transfers.

The operating expenditures are all expenditures except the ones on capital investments (purchas-ing of equipment, IT, furniture, physical space, preparation of projects, infrastructure).

Table 11. Macedonian LGU operating surplus

Source: Ministry of finance. Author's calculation.

2000 2004 2005Taxes 712,628,158.00 3,195,760,482.00 3,293,469,433.00Transfers Received 204,644,405.00 1,258,231,939.00 2,001,540,168.00Other 7,070,711.00 310,441,253.00 189,320,841.00Current Revenue 924,343,274.00 4,764,433,674.00 5,484,330,442.00Operating expenditure 783,991,179.00 2,081,679,723.00 2,303,634,812.00Operating Balance 140,352,095.00 2,682,753,951.00 3,180,695,630.00Interest Paid 261,502.00 3,483,246.00 2,896,549.00Current Balance 140,090,593.00 2,679,270,705.00 3,177,799,081.00Capital Revenue 1,672,592.00 107,029,025.00 75,149,262.00Capital Expenditure 100,870,960.00 2,660,268,957.00 2,665,409,943.00Capital Balance - 99,198,368.00 - 2,553,239,932.00 - 2,590,260,681.00Balance Before Debt Variation 239,288,961.00 5,232,510,637.00 5,768,059,762.00Debt Repayment - 15,411,230.00 32,000,000.00New Borrowing 424,000.00 3,953,168.00 13,640,000.00Net Debt Increase (Decrease) 424,000.00 - 11,458,062.00 - 18,360,000.00Net Surplus/(Deficit) 239,712,961.00 5,221,052,575.00 5,749,699,762.00DEBT STOCKShort-term N.A. N.A. N.A.Long-term N.A. 2,900,000,000.00 1,400,000,000.00Total debt N.A. 2,900,000,000.00 1,400,000,000.00

96

Analyzing the 2006 budget of the Municipalities, all of the municipalities run an operating surplus(84 out of 84), which may look like they are capable of incurring debt in the future. However, thesefigures do not reflect the whole reality, as they do not take into account the arrears which are moni-tored off the balance and must be paid before a municipality starts any new borrowing.

The biggest obstacle in Macedonia to monitor and to define the capacity of the municipalities toborrow is the cash/accrual accounting issue. The central government does not have the correct dataand the municipalities does not provide adequate budget accounting and reporting of the operational-current balance. If this situation does not change by the end of 2006 to enable the municipalities andthe Ministry of Finance to have an accurate operational-current balances for 2006, it will not be pos-sible to start the new phase (planned to start at 1st August, 2007) which would allow the municipal-ities to borrow within the limits defined in the law.

Thus, the data in the table do not reflect the reality in the local government sector in Macedonia andmust be treated with reserve.

It should be noted that some revenues that are classified as operating revenues by Macedonia'scharter of accounts, most importantly the revenues from the Land Development Fee, should be con-sidered capital revenues because they come from the one-time use or sale of assets and are notrecurrent revenues.

7.5. The EU perspective

The general principles of LGU functioning are set in the EU Charter of LSG. Accession to the EU willrequire considerable financial resources for investments in the environment sector and theMacedonian public sector will have to meet the requirement for 25 % matching funds to obtain pre-accession grants.

The Stability Pact and Maastricht Criteria limit the overall public debt (which includes the debt onthe central, regional, and local governments including social security funds, but excluding public enter-prises) to less than 60 % of the GDP and the total annual budget deficit to 3 % of GDP. In Germany itwas discussed whether to give 1.93 percentage points out of the 3 % to the federal government andthe rest to the other tiers of the government but this proposal was not adopted. (Farber, 2002). Thedefinition of public debt can be an important policy issue in deciding the boundaries of local govern-ment borrowing prerogatives. Concern about how to meet the limitations imposed by the MaastrichtCriteria has led to discussion about how to coordinate debt incurred at the sovereign level with that atthe sub-sovereign level. A special problem can be that the debt of public utility companies is usuallynot counted in the debt to GDP ratio thus creating a hidden debt. These companies are owned at locallevel (in Romania and Macedonia) and LGU give them guarantees and subsidies.

Box 3. Approximation/Convergence

Approximation, in an accession context, is described as a unique obligation of membership of the EU. It is anobligation to fully align national laws, regulations, rules and procedures in order to give effect to the entire body ofEU law contained in the acquis communautaire.

There are three key steps to approximation:

1. Transposition. Transposition is the first step toward approximation in an EU accession context. It means thatthe requirements of EU legislation must be fully incorporated into national legislation. This will require adoption oramendment to national laws, regulations, rules and procedures;

2. Implementation. Also known as Practical Application. Implementation is the incorporation of EU law by thecompetent authority/ies into individual decisions. It includes providing the infrastructure, budgets and provisions

97

The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics-NUTS classification is hierarchical in that it sub-divides each member state into three levels: NUTS levels 1, 2 and 3. The second and third levels aresubdivisions of the first and second levels respectively. Member states may decide to go further stillin terms of hierarchical levels by subdividing NUTS level 3.

The territorial units are defined in terms of existing administrative units in the member states, whichare associated with a geographical area of authority. The classification of these areas is based on thepopulation according to the following criteria:

Table 12. Classification criteria of NUTS area

Source: EC

At NUTS Level II Romania created 8 development regions to comply with European Union acces-sion requirements and to be eligible for the EU structural funds. These regions are not territorial admin-istrative structures; that is they do not have executive or legislative powers or separate budgets butrather serve the purpose of providing units of observation for collecting statistical data according toEU rules and providing the framework for implementing Romania's regional development policy and tobe the recipients of EU structural funds. In Macedonia the preparation of the Law on balanced region-al development is yet to be adopted.

Here is information on population by the NUTS Level III in Macedonia. (Vardarski region does notcomply with the minimum population requirements in accordance with the NUTS criteria)

needed to enable the competent authorities to perform their obligations under EU law and to take appropriate deci-sions; and

3. Enforcement. The necessary controls and penalties must be provided to ensure full and proper compliancewith the law. Thus the objective of the approximation process is to fully integrate all the EU legislation requirementsinto the national legal system so that the accession country is then ready and able to fulfill all the EU MemberStates' obligations. This will usually include a complete institutional re-structuring so that the accession countrycan comply with all EU requirements such as reporting to the Commission.

Convergence is a somewhat different process. It means bringing two legal systems closer together rather thanthe full alignment required by approximation. Convergence implies that the main principles/features of one legalsystem should be reflected/integrated into the other legal system, taking into account the specificity of the othersystem and without necessarily adopting exactly the same requirements in detail. Convergence implies the follow-ing process:

! Analysis of the relevant EU legislation in order to define the main principles and features;! Review of the national legislation in the particular area and analysis of institutional arrangements to

determine to what extent it integrates these EU principles and features;! Adaptation of the national legislation and / or development of implementing regulations which integrate the

main principles and features of the EU legislation; and! Adaptation of the institutional arrangements to implement the adapted national legislation in practice.

Level Minimum population Maximum populationNUTS 1 3 million 7 millionNUTS 2 800,000 3 millionNUTS 3 150,000 800,000

98

Table 13. Population by NUTS 3 level in Macedonia

Source: Census 2002. Author's calculation.(For more about indicators by NUTS 3, 4 and 5 in Macedonia visit www.lsg-data.org.mk).

With the introduction of the development regions it is expected that self generated revenues willhave to increase and that they will benefit from the following EU funds:

! SAPARD - for agricultural and rural development, and the protection of the environment and! IPA - for financing important projects which aim to protect the environment and to support trans-

European transportation networks.

Since the EU system is founded on a promotion of compliance and enabling approach to regula-tion and the Macedonian approach is still largely based on command and control (weak institutionalcapacity), convergence will require a focus on the identification of instruments or legislative provisionsthat move the society and institutional structures towards more modern approaches to compliance,backed by economic incentives.

There may be certain risks in Macedonia that can impede or delay legal convergence for example:

1. Political climate must be mature for changes in legislation;2. A "difficulty" in convergence is to select what not to transpose/ implement. However, generally,

if convergence is embarked on, it would seem advantageous to transpose as much of the EU legisla-tion as possible. The limits are likely to be those of cost and lack of compliance in implementation.Provisions with no prospect of implementation and enforcement should be reconsidered;

3. The consequences of convergence may not be fully known, which could lead to wasted oppor-tunities in terms of "getting it right";

4. Institutions and human capacity for management planning and implementation may not be avail-able. The institutional set-up may also carry inherited conflicts of interests.

The changes in legislation should be accompanied by standards and guidelines to assist the imple-mentation. The imposition of minimum standards can eliminate local decision-making powers. By set-ting minimum service standards, there is the implication that the local government is primarilyaccountable to the central government (which sets the standards) rather than to the residents whoelected the council and mayor. On the other hand, if standards are set well beyond the abilities of localgovernments to meet those standards with existing resources, the situation is no different than anoth-er type of unfunded mandate. Another way is to establish a system of benchmarks across LGU butthis will require a strong statistical system.

NUTS 3 level Population (census 2002)Pelagoniski 238.136Vardarski 133.180

Severoistocen 172.787Jugozapaden 219.741

Skopski 578.144Jugoistocen 171.416

Poloski 305.930Istocen 203.213

99

7.6. Financial market structure in Macedonia

The economy in Macedonia used to operate on a cash basis with a small and highly centralizedbanking sector and no functioning capital markets. Major capital spending at LGU level was financedby grants or soft loans and was directed by the central government or, in the case of smaller routineprojects, financed on a pay-as-you go basis by the LGU. Donor help was not systematic but rather attheir discretion. As a result of the format and purpose, financial reports often gave little insight into thefinancial condition of the local governments.

Table 14. Risk categories and levels by instruments

Source: Mr. Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel presentation on pension funds and capital markets in Macedonia. Adoption by the author.

The financial institutions in the Republic of Macedonia are banks (20), insurance companies (10),leasing companies (8) and the brokerage houses (11). All these entities function in separately regula-ted and supervised segments. However, the Macedonian financial system has the same characteristicsas the continental one (Europe) as most dominant sector is the banking sector (table), where around90% of the total assets of the financial institutions are located together with a 50% share of GDP.

Table 15. Financial institutions in the Republic of Macedonia (as of end of 2005)

Source Ministry of finance. Author's adoption.

Sovereign Risk Exogenous Credit or Maturity Risk Exchange-RateIdiosyncratic Risk Solvency Risk Risk

Current Government Moderate Low ModerateBondsFuture LGU bonds Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Government T-Bills and T-Bonds Moderate Low High to moderateCurrent NBRM Bills Low Low Very highBank Deposits Moderate Moderate, High

heterogeneousCorporate Shares High High LowMortgage Securities Low Low LowCorporate Bonds Moderate Moderate ModerateForeign Investments Very low Very low Very low Low High: ST-MT(Foreign Government (LT) deprecBonds) (apprec) risk

Banks Insurance companies Brokerage houses Leasing companiesAssets ( in mill denar) 140345.0 13618.0 447.0 2275.0Share in the total assets of thefinancial institutions 89.6 8.7 0.3 1.5Share in GDP (%) 50.6 4.9 0.2 0.8

Concentration in % (largesttwo/three) from the total assesof the industry 66.0 81.4 58.8 61.0Capital (in mill denar) 21670.0 2894.0 348.0 121.0Foreign capital in % 52.5 63.0 100.0 100.0

100

The remaining segments in the financial markets of the Republic of Macedonia are in a process ofdevelopment. In the last couple of years the capital market and the insurance segment have seen rapiddevelopment, though much remains to be done.

Until now the only issuer of bonds has been the Government (except in 2004 when one privatecompany issued bonds to a known buyer). The Ministry of Finance started issuing government secu-rities in 2000, when big structural problems (frozen currency deposits from the former Yugoslavia,denationalization, rehabilitation and privatization of the banking sector) in Macedonia were resolvedthrough issuance of long term securities to the legal and physical entities concerned. However, thetypical government securities (3 and 6 month) were first issued in 2004. Since then the Ministry ofFinance conducts regular auctions for both short and long term government securities (primary mar-ket) allowing these securities to be traded afterwards on the Macedonian Stock Exchange and in theOver-the-Counter Market (secondary market).

One can gain a general idea of the relative size of the financial markets by comparing figures thatare collected at the international level. For example, the volume of listed securities in exchanges ortransactions in the exchanges to the overall GDP of the country is a rough indicator of the relative roleof the financial markets in the economy (in Macedonia this ratio is 11% at the end of 2005).

More precisely in terms of credit markets, one would look at listed securities in the debt market(such list including any exchange listings, as well as bonds in the OTC market) in relation to the GDP.In Macedonia the only listed bonds are government bonds, the stock of these securities to GDP isinsignificant (only 13.7% in August, 2006)

One source of useful information regarding potential demand (as well as an overall measure of per-ceived sub-sovereign risk) is the weighting that banks must use to calculate their capital adequacy.Although these have varied internationally, they are increasingly coming into conformance with theBIS-Bank of International Settlement capital adequacy ratios. The ratio refers to the ratio of bank cap-ital to performing loans (non-performing loans carry special provisions). The BIS minimum is current-ly at 8%.

Under the BIS regime, loans to the sovereign government of the same country as the bank areassigned a 0 sectoral risk weight (i.e. they are assumed to be domestically risk free) and those of pri-vate-sector firms are assigned a 1. The BIS recognizes that the relationship between the central gov-ernment and sub-national governments vary from country to country and therefore allows the centralbank in the respective countries to assign the appropriate risk weight. Thus, the weightings providethe central bank's opinion as to the relative risk of loans to the sub-national governmental sector incomparison to the sovereign and the private sector.

In the US, the BIS credit factors range from 0.1 for general obligations to 1 for private activity (cor-porate) bonds. In foreign countries, sub-national government obligations that have explicit central gov-ernment guarantees have BIS ratios of 0 (which makes them tantamount to direct sovereign obliga-tions) and those that do not, have ratios that can range up to 1 or even higher. Ratios can be changedto recognize overall changes in sectoral credit strength. This recently happened in South Africa, wherethe ratio was increased from 0.1 to 1 for sub-national governmental securities when the national gov-ernment announced that it would no longer guarantee municipal and provincial debt.

101

7.7. The demand side of LGU borrowing in Macedonia

The challenge for Macedonia is to increase both private and public investment to support econom-ic growth and modernize its infrastructure while maintaining a stable macro-economic environment.The LGUs and municipal companies will play a critical role in this context, as they are responsible forundertaking a substantial portion of the infrastructure investments required.

Table 16. Stakeholders in municipal credit market development

Source: USAID and LGAP 2002. Adapted by the author.

LGU investments are well below what is required to meet EU infrastructure standards over the pre-accession period. Currently, most of local infrastructure is obsolete and a large amount of effort isrequired for its replacement and modernization. Services such as water, sewage and solid waste sys-tems involve large unit costs. To increase the level of such services will require considerable invest-ments. It is evident that large part of development, replacement, and renewal of local assets will needto be financed out of LGU budgets.

The EAR project on strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of environment and physical plan-ning prepared estimates for meeting the capital and operational costs of the investments required tocomply with European Union directives and policies in the "heavy investment" areas of environmentalmanagement. Within this project, the indicative estimates for the cost of accession in the heavy invest-ment areas have been estimated as:

Table 17. Assessment of total investments in millions of euro/per capita in euros forapproximation of Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria to EU environmental legislation

Source: EAR 2002-2003 and WB 2005. Adapted by the author.

Demand Side (Borrowers) General purpose LGU, municipally owned companies, public-private joint ventures

Supply Side (Creditors) Commercial banks, specialized banks, insurance companies, pension funds, wealthy individuals

Market Makers Stock Exchange; Licensed Financial Intermediaries; Financial Advisory Firms; Credit Rating Agencies

IFIs World Bank; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; European Investment Bank

Overseers & Regulators Ministry of Finance, Court of Accounts, Securities Commission, National Bank, IMF

TA Providers USAID, US Treasury and SEC advisers, World Bank, EBRD, private consulting organizations

Macedonia Romania BulgariaUrban waste water treatment, sewerage 229/113 1,385/63 2,056/267Large combustion plants 274/136 402/18 1,627/211Municipal waste management, landfills 80/40 NA NAMunicipal waste management, other installations 120/59 NA NAIPPC-air emissions 381/187 806/36 3,261/424TOTAL 1,084/537 10,593/475 6,944/902

102

7.8. The supply side of LGU Borrowing in Macedonia

The financial sector in Macedonia is still dominated by the banks as the core of financial activityand commercially based funding. Due to the weak performance of the commercial sector, most bankshave shifted away from customer lending towards investment in central government securities andNBR deposits.

Absorptive capacity of domestic capital market: ! Outstanding stocks of financial assets:! Government debt outstanding: EUR 669 m. (August 2006)! Total bank deposits: EUR 1.79 b. (June 2006)

The Macedonian financial system and the real economy are gradually developing. The banking sec-tor is gradually reducing the non-performing loans (10% at the end of 2005) and broadening the rangeof entities for financing (crediting). Average credit growth in Macedonia in the recent years is 25%.Municipalities may be interesting entities for banks but with high captiousness, as the financial state-ments quality within each municipality needs carefully to be checked (which initially will make munic-ipalities less attractive for the banks).

Apart from the banking sector, the capital market shows rapid deepening as well as an incrementof awareness in the broader population about the advantages of investing in securities. However, thecorporate governance issues have to be reflected in the practice as well in order to increase confi-dence in the capital market issuers and institutions. At the moment, the securities law does not makeany specific or additional requirements for the municipalities as potential issuers of debt (in a form ofmunicipal bonds). The main obstacle for the supply/investors would be:

! untrustworthy financial statements of the municipalities! lack of transparency and accountability in the local governance! lack of skillful staff within the municipalities for long term financial planning! lack of good ideas/projects to be financed with limited possibility to forces the revenues from the

investment

7.9. The investment at economic scale

Economic scale can be analyzed by considering the regional balance, relative size of LGU, instru-ments to attract investors (inter-municipal cooperation for example) and institutional solutions(Municipal credit bank for example).

The next table reveals a wide disparity in expenditure level and composition among LGU inMacedonia. Disparities in expenditure per capita are quite dramatic. The poorest LGU spends in percapita terms only one-fourth of the average LGU and just a small fraction of that of the wealthiest LGU.Expenditure composition is also varies a lot. It appears that some LGUs spend 100 percent of theircurrent expenditures on the wage bill while other LGUs have relatively high shares of investmentexpenditures. It seems that the situation improved in 2006 as the variability and discrepancy is lower.

103

Table 18. Disparity in LGU expenditure level and composition in 2002

Data Source: Ministry of finance. Author's calculations.

Table 19. Disparity in LGU expenditure level and composition in 2006

Data Source: Ministry of finance. Author's calculations.

Having in mind that in Macedonia a certain percentage of LGU are too small to access the privatecapital market, it could prove beneficial to reorganise the Bureau for Underdeveloped LGU as aMunicipal Bond Bank. Small municipalities frequently have financing needs that are of such a smallscale that they cannot attract sufficient attention and gain access to various sources of capital.Additionally, the costs of debt issuance are a substantially higher percentage of project costs and areoften prohibitive. Capital supply sources are often not interested in expending the effort to lend tosuch small-scale projects and to smaller municipalities. Thus, a Municipal Bond Bank could be cre-ated by legislation in order to:

! Borrow from the private capital markets on behalf of smaller municipalities, ! To lend capital to the smaller municipalities and ! To benefit economies of scale and share the costs of debt issuance among several projects.

The policy issue is whether a special intermediary should be created for jurisdictions that cannotaccess credit markets through existing market mechanisms. Special intermediaries should not replaceexisting commercial lending and underwriting institutions, but instead should complement them. Manykinds of intermediary models are possible, beside a Municipal Bond Bank, such as bond pools, revolv-ing loan funds, and municipal lending institutions.

A fundamental consideration has to do with fiscal capacity. This relates to the ability and willing-ness to pay, and largely governs which units are candidates for debt issuance. Such considerationsare not always correlated with size, but larger jurisdictions typically are of greater interest to privateproviders of credit for a number of reasons, including greater sophistication, the ability to draw uponmore resources and the ability to spread the fixed costs of debt transactions over larger volumes ofborrowing. Three groups of jurisdictions can be identified as regards to the likelihood for the issuanceof sub-sovereign debt in private markets:

Min Average MaxExpenditures Current (as % of total) 22 84 100

Wage bill (as % of current) 7 45 100Investment (as % of total) 0 16 78In per capita termsCurrent (in $ US) 3 12 102

Wage bill (in $ US) 1 5 27Investment (in $ US) 0 3 38

Min Average MaxExpenditures Current (as % of total) 24 61 91

Wage bill (as % of current) 13 30 53Investment (as % of total) 9 39 75

104

! Those units that because of size and financial and managerial resources already have access tocapital markets;

! Those that either have none or only limited access to capital markets, but can generate revenuessufficient to their responsibilities and are otherwise capable of borrowing private capital. Thisgroup consists of those units that (a) are large and that have sufficient capabilities to attract pri-vate interest without direct central government help, and those (b) that are too small or that lackthe managerial capability to attract private lending at present, but with assistance could gainaccess;

! Those that cannot generate sufficient revenue either to provide the services they require or to buildthe needed infrastructure. Jurisdictions in this group, which for all practical purposes are "finan-cial wards" of higher levels of government, do not have access to capital markets and most likelyshould not. That is why consideration should be given to the creation of a Municipal Bond Bank.

The above classification of the LGU in accordance with the creditworthiness is useful for analyticpurposes, such as describing potential demand for credit access and the likely size and viability of alocal government securities market. But, should such distinctions be codified into a law or regulationfor purposes of predetermining which units can access the markets and obtain credit? In developedeconomies, freely operating credit markets effectively classify borrowers on their merits, and reflecttheir credit assessments in the prices charged for borrowing. Nonetheless, even in these mature mar-kets, regulatory classification is sometimes practiced by central or state governments in order to pro-vide certain privileges to some borrowers or to impose restrictions on others. For example, in theUnited States most state governments differentiate among local governments through various legalclassification mechanisms, and these differentiations can include differential borrowing powers.However, the credit market itself further differentiates among governments, based on varying assess-ments of creditworthiness. These assessments are based on perceived differences in the jurisdictions'economic vitality, managerial efficiency, financial condition, and the necessity for and viability of indi-vidual projects. Such a detailed prescription of creditworthiness by the regulator can crowd out theself regulation of the efficiency of the capital market.

However small an LGU is, it will need capital investment and if it is not ready to finance its needsin order to provide a certain level of quality in its services, it becomes a central government obligationto step forward to fill the gap. If central government chooses to do so by subsidy for a loan or by guar-antee, the potential exists for large amounts of failure which can lead to national bailouts, an increasein the supply of credits and to inflationary pressure.

Encouragement to investors from relatively small LGUs can come from upgrading LGU financialmanagement practices, reporting and disclosure in order to attract attention.

Table 20. Percentage of LGU having less than 2000 (1000 for Bulgaria)and less than 5000 inhabitants

Source: NISES- National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies for Romania, NSI Bulgaria.

Percent of total Number of inhabitantsRomania (census 2002) 451 LGU (16 %) < 2000Romania (census 2002) 2095 LGU (72 %) < 5000Bulgaria 0 LGU (0 %) < 1000Bulgaria 30 LGU (11.4 %) < 5000Macedonia 1 LGU (1.2 %) < 2000Macedonia 15 LGU (17.9 %) < 5000

105

In general those LGU with less than 5000 citizens are too small to build technical, fiscal and finan-cial capacities. Also, such municipalities are too small to undertake investments at an economic scale.They are likely to have higher average costs than larger jurisdictions (one instance where economiesof scale cannot be realized). They may find difficulty in retaining capable staff and are more likely tolack the capacity to provide public services effectively.

With the Law 339 in Romania, the local government units are classified into two categories,depending on their administrative capacity (Article 10):

a) 1st category, to which belong the local government units that have the necessary administrativecapacity to perform the transferred competences. These local governments can efficiently, fully andimmediately perform the transferred competences;

b) 2nd category, to which belong the local government units that do not have the necessary admin-istrative capacity to perform the transferred competences. These local governments cannot efficient-ly perform the transferred competences.

The local governments belonging to the 2nd category are temporarily excluded from the transfer ofcompetences until they can build the administrative capacity necessary to perform the transferredcompetencies, according to the law.

Thus it is critical to establish a regulatory framework to enable these municipalities to form varioustypes of joint ventures to undertake and finance investments. These can take the form of municipali-ties associations, special purpose districts, intermunicipal companies, mandating the combining ofcommunes (counter to the spirit of decentralization and in the disputed case of Ceshinovo andObleshevo for example) and providing financial incentives for LGU to join forces in the provision ofcertain services. Pilot efforts by the donor community to demonstrate the economies that can begained from cooperative efforts among communes may be appropriate. Asymmetric functions that is,some service responsibilities could be assigned to LGU but the responsibility of providing similar serv-ices in rural LGU could remain a central function etc. The urban/rural discrimination in relation to theasymmetric functions should be defined in the Law on LGU. In Romania the amendment of Law 215Article 11 among other says:

"Associations for community development shall be set up based on local council's decision,respectively county council's decision, in order to carry on together development programs of region-al or zone interest or common delivery of a number of public services. The deliberative and execu-tive authorities at the level of each constituent local authority maintain their local autonomy, accord-ing to the law".

This "according to the Law" phrase might create problem of "no action" as is the case in Macedoniawhen 37 % of the LGU that were interviewed expect the Ministry of LGU and 34 % expect the line min-istries to initiate any inter-municipal cooperation. Most of them believe that the obstacle for such coop-eration across competencies is of legal nature4. This once again proves that simply adopting lawsmeans nothing in reality if there is no capacity to implement them in practice.

Having a large number of small municipalities is not an impediment to the undertaking and financ-ing of investments at an economic scale as long as such joint ventures can be formed, revenues canbe assigned to them, and they have a right to borrow against these revenues streams to finance invest-ments. Some forms of those joint ventures can be:

4) From an EAR project on decentralization in Macedonia.

106

! Entities created by agreement by more than one municipality to accomplish a special purpose(e.g., to provide fire protection efficiently across a broad area). Their revenues and expenditurescan be separated from those of the organizing municipalities. Their powers can derive solely fromthe municipalities ("joint powers"), or though legislation which can limit or extend such combin-ing powers

! Quasi-municipal entities created by state or national legislation. These entities might providemunicipal services (e.g., water development, disease control, or transport services) where needsdo not necessarily relate to municipal boundaries.

Typically, in a transition economy such as Macedonia, LGU are highly dependent on transfers fromthe central government. While transfers can be very volatile and untested for sustained periods of time,they form a major portion of revenues and are attractive for interception to cover debt service pay-ments. Intercepts can have a powerful impact on local borrowers, especially small and remote units.

7.10. LGU services and borrowing

The LGU provides services many of which don't generate profits but are in heavy need of capitalinvestments. Also, municipal loans typically cannot be secured by real property that is used for theprovision essential public services.

The following issues for Romania, related to services provided by the LGU and the need for bor-rowing, also hold true in the case of Macedonia. (USAID LGAP 2002):

! The treatment of the citizen right of access to essential services in the legal framework, and therole of national social welfare policy in assuring access to service among poor Romanian house-holds

! Investment funding capacity of the local governments and municipal services providers relativeto assigned investment funding responsibilities

! Scale of investment required to meet recognized standards and policy goals! Determination of the roles of market and non-market finance in supplying investment finance

needs! Treatment of household ability to pay, especially for user charges for municipal services! National sectoral modernization policy, especially for district heating

Investment capacity in Romania is limited because of:! household incomes are low! payments arrears are high! rates do not cover renewal of existing assets, nor expansion of the system! underlying assets are owned by local governments, and under Romanian legal doctrine can-

not be sold, mortgaged or pledged to secure borrowing! national policy denies access to targeted investment subsidy from GOR sources! previous subsidy experience in district heating, the largest subsidy area, was premised on waste-

ful producer subsidies and poorly targeted end user subsidies

We would add in the case of Macedonia, related to communal enterprises-CE (see more in EARPhase 2; 2006):

a. Low level of revenue collectionb. Subsidy system based on affordability of the consumers rather than pursuing cost recovery pricing

107

c. Problem of requirement for invoiced VAT payments by the Public Revenue Officed. The court procedure for collecting revenues duee. The LGU do not settle their liabilities toward the CE even though they are their foundersf. The regular political disputes between the Mayor and the Council leads to a late decision or no

decision made about financial accounts, prices, programs etc while the CE should operate daily andbecause of that regularly operate outside their legal framework

g. The waste locations are far from modern facility's standards for the disposal of solid waste whichis nice example that communal activity is not an environmental issue but rather a cross cutting prob-lem with environmental issues.

h. Some of the bye laws of the CE are not in accordance with the separate laws that regulate theactivity.

i. There remain activities such as construction and trade set within the bye laws as communal activ-ities

j. No tariff system developed for the price of communal servicesk. Depreciated assetsl. Still some CE are not re-registered

How the Macedonian CE can provide the 25 % contribution necessary to access EU funding isquestionable and this is one reason more why LGU borrowing in Macedonia will be attractive in nearfuture.

7.11. Sub-sovereign Rating Factors in Macedonia

Credit analysis is a product of the operation of a credit market and only becomes viable when andwhere there are a variety of competing investments with differing risk and reward characteristics.Credit ratings are the leading form of institutionalized credit analysis and assist in developing an activesecurities market by pooling skills to develop opinions. Ratings play an important role in that theyfocus on credit risk (risk of payment delay or default) which is then used to help judge risk and reward.

While the major agencies have different ways of weighting the factors, they agree on the major ana-lytical ingredients they consider in judging the creditworthiness of sub-sovereign credits. These canbe summarized as in the next table, with some indications as to how various factors help or hurt acredit rating.

Table 21. Factors considered in judging the creditworthiness of sub-sovereign credits

Factor CommentSovereign Rating Ceiling The rating of the national government usually sets the top limit on the rating that a

sub-sovereign unit can enjoy. National government set monetary and fiscal policy and usually have first claim on foreign exchange and can change the rules of the game for the junior units of government. Exceptions to this rule can be found if the debt is secured by offshore assets or revenue streams.

Economy Fiscal health is usually closely linked to the health of the local economy and the diversification in activity (which often comes with size) helps balance the economy's performance. Demographics are important. A high dependency population (the very young and very old are negatives) and a too rapid growth in population are negatives. Higher-income and more educated population is a plus, as is an acceptable

108

distribution and rate of growth in income. Creditors are also interested in the structureof the local economy. Particularly, how much of it is in private hands, and how dependent it is on a single industry, or a small number of large employers. As a result, local governments should be able to present to creditors accurate information on the distribution of employment across types of firms and industries, as well informationon the general economic situation of the largest employers. Of particular value here, is information on the number of enterprises (and in fact individuals) who have substantial tax arrears, because tax arrears are generally a good sign of economic distress and monitoring them is often used by local governments and creditors to anticipate poten-tial economic problems. Indeed, rating agencies typically require local governments toprovide them with lists of the largest employers and as well as lists of the firms withthe largest tax arrears. For Macedonian LGU individually it is worth estimating whetherthey depend more on property tax revenues or PIT revenues in the context of econom-ic activity since the PIT revenues are more elastic to economic fluctuations. Here areasonable long run solution for Macedonian LGU is to improve own tax administra-tion, enforcing, collection.

An assignment of functional spending responsibilities consistent with revenueresources is a plus. Intergovernmental transfers are looked at for their size and pre-dictability. The willingness and ability of the national government to detect and stemfinancial emergencies is a positive. The rigor and timeliness of budgetary and financiallaws are examined and can be either a plus or negative depending on the flexibilitythey provide localities. Past performance in achieving budgetary balance are impor-tant. Timeliness and comprehensive of financial reporting and following consistentstandards are a plus. In Macedonia, LGU were being assigned new expenditureresponsibilities without being assigned new sources of adequate revenues especiallyin the education. Changes in environmental standards, for example, can lead to signifi-cant increases in local government costs, while changes in the way businesses areregulated can have an impact on their revenues.

Revenue composition and trends are considered with ability to set rates at the locallevel seen as a plus. Tax burdens should be acceptable in comparison to neighboringregions. Effective use of charges and fees are viewed favorably, large transfers of gen-eral funds to local enterprises are not. Possible indicators: % of revenues of GDP and% of LGU that have revenues less than nation average. Another important weakness ofthe current intergovernmental finance system is that Macedonian LGU have limitedpowers to increase their revenues through their own policy decisions thus, the vastmajority of their revenues come from shared taxes and fees, or transfers. This is prob-lematic for creditors for two reasons. On the one hand, it means that local govern-ments have relatively little ability to adjust their revenue policies to meet their debtservice needs. On the other hand, it means that their revenues are fundamentallydependent on the tax polices of the central government. Another problem can beadverse effect of poor collection performance of own revenues from property. If sometaxpayers are not paying their legal tax liabilities whereas others are, the systembecomes less equitable. Particularly problematic is the case where wealthier and morepowerful segments of the locality are also delinquent in paying. This, in turn, can leadthose who comply with the tax to conclude that the tax is unfair and decide that theytoo should stop paying. Another problem is the lack of forecasting abilities and possi-

Structure and Management

Fiscal performance

109

ble overestimation of revenues (experience in Macedonia and Romania). The capitalbudgeting should move from a wish list preparation to setting clear priorities and costbenefit decision making. The unsuccessful transition and insider privatization processled to a negative perception of private business thus, giving little space to PPP as awindow for the LGU to consider off budget projects. Other problematic areas are theunpredictability of the system with the following determinants: the central government(PRO) is resistant in transferring the records for the purpose of the property tax collec-tion, no vision and solution to solve the arrears, instead of increasing the transfers fordecentralized competencies they are decreased (education and fire fighting for exam-ple) breaking the basic rule of assigning competencies/services without revenues tocover the costs of providing them, the possible change within the fiscal system (intro-duction of flat tax) and the poverty, high dependency of central government in terms ofrevenues. Within such a framework it is difficult to do any forecasting, analyses etc.

Capital spending and maintenance spending are a plus; a large wage bill is a negativesince the expenditures are more rigid and there is less chance for operating surplus. Italso will create a hidden risk of unfavorable outcomes in bad economic times. In sucha situation the reserve funds of the LGU are becoming more important. The ability tobudget and to accurately realize budgets are a plus. Positive balances (surpluses) incurrent operating budget are a strong positive. Capital budget planning and paying forlarge amounts with current revenues a plus. Possible indicators: % of expenditures ofGDP and % of LGU that have less than the nation average. Forecasting and budgetplanning and execution are important indicators of financial management of a LGU. Ifthe trend is toward lesser ratio of collection in time this is a clear signal that the budg-et planning is bad and the technical skills in forecasting are poor it is also a risk tobuild short term debt.

Liquid assets and marketable real assets are favorable factors, as are healthy reservesin relationship to annual expenditures. Outstanding debt is considered. Short term debtis a concern if not periodically retired. Long-term debt and contingent debt (wherethere are guarantees to others) is generally a negative unless used in support of pro-ductive (self-supporting) activities. Short maturity debt with principal due at the term(bullet maturity) is a negative because of continuing pressure to refinance and poten-tial burden on current revenues. Overlapping debt of other governments that relies onsame economic base is considered. Possible indicators: % of investment from totalexpenditures and % of LGU less than national average.

The lack of clear laws, legal precedent or effective judicial system is major impedi-ments, especially where there is restricted revenue or enterprise-based pledges. A his-tory of repudiations or insolvencies is a large negative. Approval of borrowings bysenior units and other restrictions on local borrowing may be a positive if efficient andnonpolitical, but can be a negative if complex, difficult and political. In Macedonia LGUare forbidden from using as collateral any piece of property that is used for the provi-sion of essential public services. This classification requires lenders to set aside high-er percentages of their own capital as reserves in case borrowers default. The regula-tory requirement that banks "set aside" or reserve different levels of their own capitaldepending on the risk rating of a credit is designed to protect the banking system aswhole. But the high reserve ratio requirements required for high risk credits means that

Composition and trendsin expenditure

Financial position

Legal framework

Opinions on credit quality are not static and the relative importance of factors can change over time.National policies concerning items other than local debt per se can change the mix and weighting ofcredit factors. Laws governing purchasing policies, public employee retirement benefits or wages, orthe reassignment of functions and revenue sources can all shift the focus of analysts.

8. CONCLUSIONS

In Macedonia it is important for the central level government to understand that decentralization isa process and it is a process that will take many years to complete. It is not a process that can relyonly on the drafting of laws but it needs to be managed in a consistent fashion so that the governmenthas a vision of what it wishes the role of LGU to be. The monitoring unit established at the centre fol-lowing the work of the Decentralization Working Group has so far proved to be only a one way "win-dow hall" for receiving complaints and problems but with no will to make changes and decisions tocreate analytical abilities and "bureaucratic- political" strength. The monitoring at the moment is notbased on hard data and analysis but rather on speculation and conjecture. Also the main driving forcefor the process remains donor sponsored projects rather than domestic will and intellectual debate.

Transition is required to go from a system in which financial capacity and strength is centrally con-trolled to one in which financial capacity and strength is distributed and independence of action at locallevel is institutionalized.

Donors tend to have unique perspectives and interests, which underscores the need for effectivecoordination across donor programs, and a mechanism to surface and address both potential collab-orative synergy and occasional conflicts.

Determining the strengths and weaknesses in fiscal decentralization will require constant monitor-ing of the process. The DWG will need strong analytical abilities but also sufficient "bureaucratic-polit-ical" strength since its conclusions are likely sometimes to run counter to the preferences of ministries

110

banks can use less of their capital for other loans, a cost that usually is reflected inhigher interest rates. Sinking or debt retirement funds are also used for other types ofloans and serve to provide lenders with the guarantee that even if the municipalityexperiences temporary financial difficulties, there will always be enough cash on handto meet a specified number of debt service payments. For this assurance to be legallysound however, LGU must be able to deposit money in such funds for periods longerthan one year. In Macedonia, however, the Law on Budget states that public budgetsare purely annual constructs and that all monies unspent in a given year, should bereturned to the general budget. As a result, to make such debt retirement funds possi-ble, the Law on budget should be amended to allow for multiyear budgetary appropria-tions for the sole purpose of setting such funds.

The basis and quality of financial records is examined, and prompt, consistent reportsare a plus. Timely and independent audits are a positive. Cash flow information orcash basis accounting that provides reliable information on cash available to pay debtservice is a positive. Evaluation of liquid assets and accounts receivable can be issuesin that required investments in government bonds can be risky and accounts may bein arrears. Of special importance is the clear financial relationship between the LGUand the enterprises (like communal ones) that might create hidden debt. Clear relation-ships between them and possible accrual accounting recording all the accruals willincrease the rating of the LGU.

Accounting and financialreporting

111

and in some instances, ZELS. The monitoring should be based on "hard" data and analysis whichrequires compilation of more detailed financial data than is available from the current single treasurysystem in order to understand and analyze local fiscal conditions.

In general, the legal framework in Macedonia is sufficient to provide rules for successful fiscaldecentralization. Given the complexity of the process and the scale of the reform the legal frameworkcan be seen as a good start. Whether the process will continue on track will depend on the monitor-ing system and how problems are identified, how (fast) solutions are identified and how the correctdecision is reached. Another important dimension of success is the participation and satisfaction ofeach party (central government, local government, citizens and donors).

In moving ahead, the process should be more domestic than donor driven in terms of initiatives,and ownership of the process should be claimed as soon as possible especially by the citizens. Sofar the citizens have not been sufficiently informed and have had a low level of participation.

The current territorial division should be re-examined considering the capacity of some LGUs, andpossible asymmetric solutions should also be considered. A clear distinction between urban and ruralLGUs will benefit not only individual LGUs (and thus in the end their citizens) but will also help in thefuture regional development strategies by narrowing the regional misbalances and to provide help inthe development of agriculture strategies as well.

As for the assignment of competencies, the subsidiarity principle has generally been respected inthe process so far. The risk is, however, that that the local government system remains with a weaksystem of financing, high arrears, low accountability and increasing economic and social misbalancesbetween different LGUs. To avoid this, the central government must enhance the analytical capacity ofthe Ministry of Finance and Ministry of LGU in order to become more effective in the monitoring andevaluation process. Examples of the areas that should be urgently addressed by these analytical unitsare the fiscal gap in the provision of services by LGUs and to find solutions for revising the inter-gov-ernmental transfer system.

The structure of own revenues and the devolution of authority to LGUs to set their own tax rates isindeed a step forward in building accountable and efficient LGU system (as well as providing LGUswith more funds). Furthermore, at the same time the LGU need support in the establishment of mod-ern tax administration (zoning, property value assessment, database building, cadastre and otherinformation systems) and need to build a regular tax system and financial management skills.

The possible introduction of flat taxing system should be considered more widely with an assess-ment of its impact on the poor stratum of the population and the social assistance programs of theLGU. The problem will be to establish the suitable tax rate given the poor wages and defining povertyso that some categories of people can be exempt from taxes.

There exists some confusion in the definition of PIT as an own revenue whereas by all standards itis a "classic" shared revenue and in the VAT transfer which is implicitly an equalization transfer. TheMinistry of Finance should, within the fiscal gap analysis, consider revising the PIT and especially theVAT transfers. The wording in the LFLGU should be precise, the envelope for horizontal equalizationshould be revised, the fiscal capacity formula should be stated in the LFLGU, and the equalization for-mula should be such as to get the best from the data available in the statistical information system.

112

The unclear status of the so-called "fund for equalization" but formally defined as own source rev-enues from the VAT show that clear wording in laws is essential to prevent future misunderstandingsand problems5. The transfer of the VAT which defined as an own revenue, is perceived by the LGU inMacedonia as such and not as a fund for equalization. The central government has a long history ofresistance to the equalization fund for many reasons including a lack of understanding its role, fear ofpolitical abuse before even legalizing the instrument. Thus, the VAT transfer has ended with a perversedefinition as an own revenue but also with the hope of providing equalization (a view from the centralgovernment). A way forward is to amend the LFLGU, stating clearly that the VAT transfer is an equal-ization fund or to introduce another equalization instrument.

In relation to financial management it appears that the right framework has been provided in termsof laws and bye-laws. One of the main needs is for more experienced and skilled personnel at the LGU-level, and so the LGUs should employ staff only based on quality and merit. Also, the possibility forborrowing should soon be available to the LGU, and the Central Government should therefore adopt aLaw on LGU insolvency and establish a separate unit within the Ministry of Finance related to LGU-borrowing.

The Council must approve a local government's budget and with it, the year's investment priorities.This means that funding for major investments is always in competition with the other investmentsthat may appeal to the municipal council in a given year. Indeed, what typically happens when localgovernments do not use debt financing is that they end-up maintaining extremely broad, but shallow,investment programmes as municipal councils divert (planned) funding for major, but costly invest-ments in facilities like water and sewage plants to other investments such as road improvements thatare cheaper and which have more immediate "political returns". In contrast, the decision to incur debt"locks in" the decision to build and pay for a costly but necessary piece of public infrastructure andthus, serves to discipline the entire investment planning process by forcing local governments to morecarefully prioritize their investment spending.

In Macedonia most importantly we have macroeconomic stability, low inflation but relatively highinterest rates although these are on a declining trend. The decentralization process on the other handhas just started and is celebrating one year after kicking off. It is still expected that much has to bedone in the area of improving the stability and predictability of the fiscal decentralization system,strengthening of fiscal autonomy and predictability in LGU budget planning and execution and in cashflow projections. There is not any substitution for municipal creditworthiness as the essential elementof a municipal credit market.

In relation to the macroeconomic stability, the central government would like to lower the level ofborrowing by the LGUs whereas the LGUs would like to increase it. On the other hand the central gov-ernment would to avoid increases in local tax rates and thus to lower the investment level at local level.This happened during the period of centralized management in Macedonia when large fraction of theLGUs arrears was incurred for this reason. In future if the central government wants to avoid the incur-ring of such LGU arrears, it should either increase the level of grants and/or allow long term borrow-ing for investment.

5) From an EAR project on decentralization in Macedonia.

113

A LGU would prefer a grants rather than a loans. Thus, there is the certain theory of game interplayby introducing a loan limit and allowing grants and the level of local taxes as instruments of centralgovernment to influence LGU behavior and to manage the macroeconomic stability. This is a furthercomplication which has a typical lack of full cost recovery for the utility services. The prices beingcharged for public services such as water supply and sewage treatment are often so low that anyattempt to fully cover the costs of a new investment through price increases would be politically unac-ceptable.

Another fact is that because prices for public services in transitional countries are so low, con-sumers are often over-consuming them. As a result, consumption can decline substantially if pricesare increased to cover the costs of a new investment. Because the scale of the decline in consump-tion can be difficult to forecast, it is also difficult to forecast how much revenue the utility will have atits disposal to pay back the loan. Creditors interested in lending to municipalities' utilities are aware ofthese risks. They also know that in Macedonia municipal councils are ultimately responsible forapproving utility rates. As a result, creditors are typically reluctant to lend directly to utilities without atleast three things, first, a clear municipal contribution to the costs of the investment, second, a so-called rate covenant in which the municipality promises to raise rates in line with a specified sched-ule so that the utility can meet its debt service payments and third, a municipal guarantee of all or partof the loan. The latter is in part to make sure that the municipality makes good on the first two prom-ises and also because the assets of the utility cannot be used to secure the credit.

The restriction on the LGU in Macedonia to keep their deposits in the treasury prevents the devel-opment of a municipality as a customer of a bank and in turn for the banking sector to become morefamiliar with the financial affairs and needs of municipalities. As a result of this restriction, municipal-ities are not presently perceived by banks as "potential customers" since they are legally restrictedfrom depositing their funds in a bank. This situation results in the lack of development of bank-clientrelationships in which bankers become generally familiar with the financial affairs and needs of theirLGU clients. In Romania a recurring comment from bank representatives in connection with the devel-opment of a municipal capital market is the lack of familiarity with municipalities, their financial affairsand their creditworthiness in general. We recommend that the LGU in Macedonia to be allowed to openaccounts in the banks and that prudent investment requirements be established for such accounts(government securities, only "best" banks).

Related to loans a legitimate question can be raised. Is the banking system in Macedonia stableenough to allow deposits by an LGU? This issue should be negotiated between the central and localgovernments. In the same context, are the LGUs mature enough to distinguish safe from risky banksas politics is involved in the banking sector in Macedonia. In Macedonia it seems that the banks donot understand the structure of municipal finances, or the types of information that should be used toassess creditworthiness LGU. In the face of such uncertainty, the bank's normal reaction is to securemunicipal loans through a Government guarantee or to demand substantial liquid collateral or tocharge a high premium in terms of high interest rates (as per the NBRM, where the bank's claims are"blocked" in the courts to the amount of 400 millions of EUR which is more than 10 % of GDP).

In Macedonia it would be interesting for an LGU to assess whether the cost of bank loan is higheror lower than issuing bonds i.e. to compare the interest rate of the bank loan with that of the bonds.The banks are not familiar with the LGU finances and given the non profit type of services for whichthe LGU investment projects are generally needed, it is likely that bank loans will cost more than a

114

bond issue. On the other hand in the case of bonds, there are additional costs for the LGU in the needto disclose a lot of information to potential investors as well as transaction costs for the registry, dis-closure, regulators and administration. Bonds are perceived more expensive and less flexible than thebank loans but following the Romanian experience we could expect that the interest rate in the capitalmarket in Macedonia being lower than the current oligopoly in the banking sector and this could makeloans being more attractive than bonds. Macedonia should apply to both types of debt instrumentswithout discriminating between them. Competition between banks and a bond market can help to keepthe costs of capital as low as possible for municipal borrowers.

However, the first bank to enter the field on a significant but financially prudent scale would havean advantage in subsequent competition for market share. The following areas might be of specialinterest for the banks to look at:

! Clarification of the legal rules surrounding municipal lending, use of collateral, legal recourse inthe event of non-repayment, etc and application of these rules to real-world management ofmunicipal credits.

! Analysis of a municipality's ability to repay loans, based on its financial statement, balance sheetand other information, as well as its entitlement to transfers and revenue sharing from the cen-tral level.

! Reducing risk through the use of collateral and other forms of security for local loans.! Realistic assessment of a community's capital needs and the process of prioritizing investments

through preparation of a local capital investment planning and local capital budget.

In summary, progress in fiscal decentralizing in Macedonia has been made but much hard workand many difficult decisions remain.

115

Annex 1. Relevant legislation in Macedonia

1. Constitution (OG 1/1991; 1/1992; 31/1998; 91/2001) 2. Law on LGU (OG 05/2002)3. Law on territorial organization (OG 49/1996)4. Law on the city of Skopje(OG 49/1996)5. Law on financing LGU (OG 61/2004)6. Law on civil servants (OG 59/2000; 112/2000; 34/2001; 103/2001; 43/2002; 98/2002;

40/2003; 85/2003; 17/2004; 69/2004; 81/2005; 30/2001; 100/2002 and 84/2003)7. Law on public procurement (OG 19/2004)8. Law on budget (OG 62/05)9. Law on budget execution (OG 3/2006)Company Law (OG 28/2004)10. Law on banking (OG 63/2000; 103/2000; 37/2002; 51/2003; 85/2003)11. Law on securities (OG 95/2005)12. Law on public debt (OG 62/2005)13. Law on education (OG 52/2002)14. Law on high education (OG 64/2000; 49/2003)15. Law on environment (OG 4/2003)16. Law on communal activities (OG 45/1997;23/1999;45/2002;16/2004)17. Law on public enterprises(OD 38/1996;6/2002; 40/2003)18. Law on culture (OG 17/2003)19. Law on balanced regional development (draft)20. Law on agriculture and rural development (draft)21. Law on sport (OG 29/2002;66/2004)22. Law on construction (OG 53/2001; 97/2001)

Annex 2. Basic data for Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria

Table 22. Basic data about Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria for 2006

Source: For Romania and Bulgaria-from Internet (CIA, IMF).

Macedonia Romania BulgariaGDP (billion USD) 6,0 204,4 71,2Surface area (million sq. km) 25,7 238, 3 110,9Population (millions) 2,02 22,3 7,7GDP per Capita (USD) 3002 9446 9223Population Density (inhabitants/sq. km) 79 91 69State Budget Balance (percent of GDP) 0.8 (0.8) 2.3

116

Annex 3. The two-phased approach of fiscal decentralization in Macedonia

Table 23. Illustration of the two-phased approach of fiscal decentralization in Macedonia

Phase Starting date Assignment of responsibility Conditional on1. Phase 1 July 2005 1. Transferring own revenues from If 90 % of the total municipalities comprising

(with amendments tax sources (the PIT sharing) to 90 % of the total population will provide:

on 30 Dec. 2004) municipalities (GOV) 1. At least 2 financial officers

2. Developing a methodology for 2. At least 3 tax experts

transferring the capital and earmarked (GOV)

3. The local governments will start with

the plan implementation of solving the

arrears up to 31st of January 2001

(local governments)

2. Phase Conditional Assignment of the responsibilities 1. All the conditions from phase 1 are

(for the block transfers): satisfied

1. Culture 2. A proper capacity of the financial officers

2. Social welfare and child protection (also in the phase I)

(kindergartens and homes for elderly) 3. Viable results of 24 months for on time

3. Education (primary and secondary school) and regular reporting confirmed by the min

4. Healthcare (public health organizations istry of finance

and primary care) 4. There are no accounts payable than usual

ones (up to 90 days)

5. The phase commission will evaluate if all

the conditions are satisfied

6. There is a written request from the

municipalities to the proper ministry and the

Ministry of finance for granting block

transfers after all the conditions is satisfied.

117

Annex 4. Comparative insolvency matrix in Estonia, Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria

Table 24. Comparative insolvency matrix in Estonia, Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria

Source: Jokey 2005. Adopted by the author.

Insolvency Initiator Method of Administration Tasks of Restrictions Support for State Exiting UnmetCriteria Initiation/ of Proceeding Trustee for Municipa- Insolvent Guarantee Claims

Cert. lity and Municipalities Debt ReliefCreditors or reduction

Estonia No clear Court or Proclamation Appointed Manage all Lose all Funds from No guarantee After recovery NAthreshold; Creditor Filing by Board financial financial issues the state for the period is"Failure to creditor (Oversight issues create budget may municipal maintained

demonstrate Committee: Formulate stabilization be requested debt and creditor'sfinancial Representatives recovery plan three to fulfill claims are

discipline." of the creditors plan in year projection portions of paid.and the states) cooperation replaces the recovery LGU could be

with Oversight municipal plan consolidatedCommittee budget into another

LGU

Macedonia Lack of NA NA NA NA NA NA No guarantee NA NAinsolvency for the

definition and municipalprocedure. debt

Only financialcrises

definition

Romania If it is unable Any creditor File with the The manager/ Develop No finance- NA NA If the state of NAto pay the or group Court of Law administrator recovery plan involving insolvency is

matured debts of creditors in the territory will attributions found to haveexceeding the unit is administrate whatsoever ended, the50% of its located, an the insolvency may be official

budget for a application recovering exercised by receiver will,period of 120 for opening procedure of the primary at manager'sconsecutive the the adminis- spending proposal,

days or proceedings trative- authority and issue an ordersalary of insolvency territorial unit. deliberative to end

payments of that authority insolvencyas planned in administrati- during the proceedingsthe budget are ve-territorial management for the

more than unit of the administrative120 days insolvency unit. Thein arrear situation manager shall

notify the endof insolvencyorder to the

primaryspendingauthority,

creditors andany interested

persons.Continue with

financialrecovery plan.

Bulgaria Municipal NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NADebt Act does

not definethe

insolvency

118

Annex 5: Strategic assessment of borrowing at LGU level

TABLE 25ASSESSING THE STATUS OF LGU BORROWING ANDINFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BY COUNTRY

TABLE 26KEY LGU BORROWING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES PURSUEDBY COUNTRY

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Overall policy Constitutional & Central govern- Local government Participation by civilstance and policy legal framework ment institutional institutional and society and privateeffectiveness and regulatory regulatory sector

framework frameworkMACEDONIA Borrowing legally Law on regional NA Solution for arrears. CEA initiative for

allowed 1st of balanced studying LGUJuly 2007 development a borrowing.

priorityROMANIA Insolvency Framework Law on Introduced NA Intensified banks

procedure defined; Decentralization insolvency participation in theChanges in a set of adopted. managers market.laws;Positive political will.

BULGARIA Municipal Debt Actadopted.


framework framework

MACEDONIA Uncertainty about Law on financing Body for public debt Lack of initiative for No participation ofFast pace of the LGU debt/arrears provides provisions management solving the existing the private sectordecentralization solution; for borrowing and established; debt; Need forprocess No insolvency instruments for Reporting forms for assistance. ZELS

definition and controlling; debt registry under political riskprocedure; Borrowing allowed developed but not ethnically driven.Only financial with prior consent practiced;instability definition. from the central Confusion on who

government based should maintainon the opinion of the debt registry forMinistry of Finance. LGU.

ROMANIA Major changes in LFP allows Commission for Active participation Weak participationSlow pace of legislation and borrowing. authorization of LGU of LGU association of the privatedecentralization definition and debt. Registry in law changes sector.process introduction of defined. ensured in

insolvency. accordance witha law.

BULGARIA Current expenditures Municipal Debt Act Central Register on NA Currentcrowd out capital defines the municipal borrowing expenditures crowdexpenditures. borrowing rules. is being created at out capitalLow level of LGU the Ministry of expenditures.borrowing. Finance Low level of LGU

borrowing.

119

TABLE 27REFORM PRIORITIES FOR LGU BORROWING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BY COUNTRY


framework framework

MACEDONIA Development of a Law on insolvency Debt management Capacity building for Securitiesviable solution for development; body of the ministry the financial commission, banks,the arrears; Law on balanced of finance to build management; credit ratingsDevelopment of regional capacity to manage Develop credit rating agencies etc.insolvency law. development LGU debt in the procedures. intensify their

developed future; Developing a activities.Commission for capacity for asset Independent/privatefinancing of management. consultingdecentralization companies to startshould consider contracting withmore in depth sub-nationalmonitoring. governments to

provide TA.

ROMANIA Separate insolvency Working groups for Further developing Further developing Further developinglaw. the decentralization in accordance with in accordance with in accordance with

of competences are best practices best practices best practicesset up withinministries and otherspecialized centralgovernment bodies

BULGARIA To find co-financingfor borrowing oninfrastructurefinanced by theEU funds.

120

Annex 6. The EU perspectives

Table 28. The EU perspectives in Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Overall policy Administrative Institutions Financial capacity NUTS IIstance Capacity

MACEDONIA National Low administrative EAR closure and To the extent that Draft Law onFast pace of development capacity. Problems transfer of functions local governments balanced regionaldecentralization strategy developed. in recruiting and to the Ministry of are not able to development inprocess. Initial retaining qualified finance. Weak generate the needed procedure. Possiblemomentum from staff. Relatively lower statistical additional resources political dispute1999 boosted with wages in the public information system. to execute the EU related to NUTS 3the Ohrid sector and low funds programs, level definition.Framework morale lead to high the opportunityagreement turnover and quit could be lost. No

rates. Without PPP rules.changing theseconditions, trainingof existingemployees is not asolution becauseonce the publicemployees havereceived skills thatwill gain them morelucrative employmentthey transition to adifferent job in theprivate sector.Private consultingcompanies not yetbegun contractingwith sub-nationalgovernments toprovide TA.

ROMANIA National Low administrative The Ministry of To the extent that 8 regionalSlow pace of Development Plan capacity. Administration and local governments developmentdecentralization prepared for the Ministry of European Interior endorses, are not able to agenciesprocess. Lack of period 2007-2013. Integration has also according to the law, generate the needed corresponding topolitical It provides the drawn up an action the initiatives and additional resources the NUTS II 8commitment foundation for plan to address the draft normative acts to execute the EU developmentand possibly prioritizing the use weak administrative regarding the funds programs, regionsvision for the of scarce capacity of sub- administrative and the opportunityprocess. government funds in national governments financial could be lost.

helping sub-national with these main decentralization Large fraction of thegovernments with elements: developed by funding is expectedthe counterpart A project for Euros ministries or other to come fromfinancing for 3.8 million to prepare specialized central contributions of theaccessing EU funds. the private sector government bodies sub-nationalMinistry of European and SMIs to deliver (Law 339). governments, and atIntegration has been coaching for EU Important as this time there is noin charge of funds and also determinant of clear plan on howpreparing the targeting staff of absorption capacity. this will be done.National regional development Requirement for The effectiveness ofDevelopment Plan agencies strong fight against the regionalas well as the New training corruption and Operational Programregional development programs for local promoting rule of law and other elements

121

Source: Adopted from Martinez 2005

EU 8 experiences:

(B) Administrative Capacity:

Member nations and candidate countries alike appear to have problems in recruiting and retainingqualified staff. Relatively lower wages in the public sector and low morale lead to high turnover andquit rates. This means that without changing these conditions, training of existing employees is not asolution because once the public employees have received skills that will gain them more lucrativeemployment they transition to a different job in the private sector.

plans, and is the and judet councils of the Nationalmanagement in programming development Planauthority for the execution and will depend cruciallyimplementation of monitoring on their integrationthe regional ERD Fund to train in the medium termdevelopment local and judet expenditureprograms. officials with a framework of the

strong component local governments.on infrastructure,although sub-nationalgovernments areexpected to contractwith the private sector.Proposal for thecreation of theInfrastructureDevelopmentCompany by theRomanian AcademicSociety and theGroup of AppliedEconomics followingthe success of theEstonian PPF. Administrativecapacity shall beassessed andestablished by law(in accordance withthe Framework lawon decentralization339).

BULGARIA National Limited Two institutions Local governments Six planning regionsDevelopment Plan administrative responsible for EU are not able to (NUTS II) werefor 2007-2013 has capacity. issues: Ministry of generate funds for established in 2000been prepared. Finance and Ministry co-financing. in order to meet theAll regulations of Regional Therefore there is accessionconcerning planning Development and an idea to create requirements.in place. Public Works. Local Development

Fund in December2006 to provideloans forco-financing.

122

Estonia supported the creation of a project preparation facility (PPF) in 2001, outside the publicsector. Administratively the financial resources available through the PPF have been useful in hiringprofessional consultants to help draft the documents required by the EU. In 2001, the Estonian PPFproduced more applications that were acceptable to the EU than in all the years from 1994-1998.

Poland: numerous private consulting companies have begun contracting with sub-national govern-ments to provide all the necessary documents and with the quality required by the EU for access tothe transfer funds.

(D) Financial capacity:

Special legislation considered in a number of EU8 countries to relax existing borrowing limits forsub-national governments.

Latvia: consolidation of smaller LGU.

Romania so far has not made a concerted effort to promote PPP One explanation, which Romaniashares with many EU8 countries, is the general mistrust of private businessmen in Eastern Europe.

Czech Republic: the Ministry of Finance developed budget rules to account for PPP projects withtransparency, even if they do not formally constitute debt, and ensure that EUROSTAT accounting reg-ulations are followed. Also, World Bank also assisted in developing "PPP Centrum" (a joint stock com-pany, fully state-owned), which is a small-scale resource center for technical assistance for ministries,regional governments, and municipalities designed to be a focal point for procuring additional techni-cal resources for these agencies when needed for particular projects.

(E) NUTS II:

Hungary is proposing the creation of a special 'equalization fund' to be used to help regions withfewer resources to meeting the EU requirements (Davey, 2003 in Martinez 2005).

Annex 7. Illustrative credit rating analyses for Macedonian LGU

1. Fiscal performance indicators:

a. % of revenues of GDP;b. LGU revenues of LGU average;c. % of own revenues over transfers (revenue autonomy); d. % of CAPEX over operational expenditures (expenditure rigidity).

2. Composition and trends in expenditure indicators:

a. % of expenditures of GDP; b. LGU expenditures of LGU average; c. Operating balance to operating revenues (operating performance); d. Balance after CAPEX to total revenues (overall performance).

123

3. Financial position indicators:

a. % of investment from total expenditures; b. LGU investment of LGU average; c. Debt to operating revenues (debt stock); d. Debt service to total revenues (debt service).

Table 29. Illustration of credit rating comparison of Macedonian LGU (2006)

LGU % of revenues LGU revenues over % of own revenues % of CAPEX overFiscal performance indicators of GDP* LGU average=1; over transfers operational

under LGU average=0 expenditures

ARACINOVO 0.00% 0 55.08% 26.99%BEROVO 0.05% 1 9.85% 308.09%BITOLA 0.15% 1 149.56% 39.48%BOGDANCI 0.01% 0 44.45% 85.78%BOGOVINJE 0.03% 0 37.55% 172.43%BOSILOVO 0.02% 0 27.31% 167.33%BRVENICA 0.01% 0 53.75% 52.90%VALANDOVO 0.02% 0 54.42% 29.47%VASILEVO 0.01% 0 30.90% 82.33%VEVCANI 0.00% 0 43.14% 87.51%VELES 0.07% 1 115.94% 39.17%VINICA 0.04% 0 26.41% 105.80%VRANETICA 0.00% 0 89.91% 28.23%VRAPCISTE 0.02% 0 285.40% 59.78%GEVGELIJA 0.07% 1 57.76% 137.58%GOSTIVAR 0.09% 1 81.45% 77.87%GRADSKO 0.01% 0 33.93% 128.23%DEBAR 0.04% 0 93.99% 117.32%DEBARCA 0.01% 0 23.18% 63.00%DELCEVO 0.03% 0 60.85% 51.20%DEMIR KAPIJA 0.01% 0 28.55% 132.96%DEMIR HISAR 0.02% 0 21.81% 81.25%DOJRAN 0.01% 0 107.04% 65.72%DOLNENI 0.01% 0 32.16% 26.71%DRUGOVO 0.01% 0 38.94% 25.23%ZELINO 0.02% 0 48.54% 88.22%ZAJAS 0.01% 0 35.50% 40.15%ZELENIKOVO 0.01% 0 149.47% 40.52%ZRNOVCI 0.00% 0 29.93% 101.18%ILINDEN 0.02% 0 140.58% 41.59%JEGUNOVCE 0.01% 0 51.80% 29.93%KAVADARCI 0.07% 1 224.48% 96.79%KARBINCI 0.01% 0 11.40% 85.77%KICEVO 0.04% 0 137.13% 41.64%KONCE 0.01% 0 38.10% 81.61%KOCANI 0.04% 0 77.06% 41.03%KRATOVO 0.01% 0 35.82% 100.30%KRIVA PALANKA 0.04% 0 32.03% 18.38%KRIVOGASTANI 0.00% 0 69.34% 22.20%KRUSEVO 0.01% 0 43.99% 58.66%KUMANOVO 0.12% 1 92.11% 25.10%LIPKOVO 0.01% 0 30.12% 302.05%LOZOVO 0.01% 0 14.38% 10.10%MAVROVO I ROSTUSE 0.01% 0 29.44% 25.91%

* GDP projected for the whole 2006

124

The credit rating agencies and investors sometimes look at other comparative data and indicatorsto assess the credit worthiness of LGU. Here are examples of some indices at NUTS III level (see morewww.lsg-data.org.mk developed by CEA and sponsored by USAID through World Learning) forMacedonia.

MAKEDONSKI BROD 0.01% 0 33.93% 114.34%MAKEDONSKA KAMENICA 0.01% 0 46.16% 62.83%MOGILA 0.01% 0 61.67% 65.16%NEGOTINO 0.03% 0 111.20% 37.61%NOVACI 0.01% 0 40.79% 110.30%NOVO SELO 0.02% 0 22.06% 26.51%OSLOMEJ 0.01% 0 19.99% 108.11%OHRID 0.12% 1 374.38% 38.27%PETROVEC 0.01% 0 60.70% 140.87%PEHCEVO 0.01% 0 18.63% 186.67%PLASNICA 0.01% 0 11.81% 42.02%PRILEP 0.10% 1 167.96% 127.95%PROBISTIP 0.04% 0 48.30% 168.00%RADOVIS 0.06% 1 170.29% 90.86%RANKOVCE 0.01% 0 14.91% 36.49%RESEN 0.03% 0 62.82% 125.09%ROSOMAN 0.01% 0 59.44% 91.78%STARO NAGORICANE 0.01% 0 31.73% 124.35%SVETI NIKOLE 0.05% 1 64.02% 52.49%SOPISTE 0.01% 0 179.65% 48.48%STRUGA 0.14% 1 234.63% 52.83%STRUMICA 0.08% 1 149.60% 14.42%STUDENICANI 0.01% 0 117.15% 51.23%TEARCE 0.02% 0 76.53% 37.24%TETOVO 0.09% 1 172.90% 19.79%CENTAR ZUPA 0.01% 0 97.78% 23.29%CAJKA 0.01% 0 18.47% 80.35%ZESINOVO I OBLESVO 0.01% 0 141.68% 102.43%CUCER SANDEVO 0.03% 0 228.39% 27.86%STIP 0.05% 1 130.32% 116.47%AERODROM 0.17% 1 349.64% 78.08%BUTEL 0.05% 1 167.77% 55.19%GAZI BABA 0.10% 1 109.93% 50.76%GORCE PETROV 0.05% 1 236.50% 89.11%KARPOS 0.13% 1 280.09% 56.98%KISELA VODA 0.10% 1 269.96% 47.08%SARAJ 0.02% 0 91.32% 104.44%CENTAR 0.17% 1 477.38% 33.36%CAIR 0.07% 1 146.15% 28.23%SUTO ORIZARI 0.01% 0 127.30% 120.37%CITY OF SKOPJE 0.87% 1 657.50% 26.99%TOTAL: 3.93% 351.01% 79.79 %

125

Table 30. Composite index of economic development

Source: www.lsg-data.org.mkNote: The more negative the number the better the situation.

Table 31.Statistics available for the variable

Source: www.lsg-data.org.mk

The CEA MCI Index is giving overall base for comparison among Macedonian LGU. It facilitates tar-geting for decision makers not only for the central government but for the donor community as well.CEA believes that the CEA MCI Index will be useful for the local governments and officials in makingstrategy and development plans as well as making comparisons among themselves and boostingcompetition among them in Macedonia. The ranking system is aimed at assessing the socio-econom-ic performance of Macedonian LGU.

Table 32. CEA MCI Index based on 28 variables

Source: www.lsg-data.org.mk.

Region Composite index of economic development Ranking

Republic of Macedonia -0,80 1,00Pelagoniski -0,40 2,00Vardarski 0,00 3,00

Severoistocen 0,90 4,00Jugozapaden 0,30 3,00

Skopski -1,30 1,00Jugoistocen -0,40 2,00

Poloski 1,00 4,00Istocen -0,10 3,00

Avg 0,00 2,75

Max 1,00 4,00

Min -1,30 1,00

Composite Composite index of Composite index of social infrastructure Composite index of communalpopulation index economic development infrastructure

1. Aging index 5. VA of non-financial 8. Education 14. Roads2. Annual sector - Illiteracy rate 15. Telephone subscribers

population growth 6. Growth rate of VA in - Number of students in tertiary3. Total birth rate non-financial sector education4. Migration net 7. Unemployment rate 9. Health

- Physicians- Infant mortality- Deaths by tuberculosis

10. Culture- Cinema performances- Public cultural objects

11. Youth at risk- Youth unemployed- Convicted juveniles

12. Democracy- Candidates for LSG per elected

counselor in LSG- Number of NGO

13. Gender equality- Female activity rate- Elected female in LSG as a share in

total elected

126

Thus, one can choose to see the scores among the separate indices and/or the composite MCI:

1. Composite population index2. Composite index of economic development3. Composite index of social infrastructure4. Composite index of communal infrastructure5. CEA Municipality Composite Indicator MCI

Table 33. Number of classes according the Sturges' rule

Number one rank illustrates best performance thus, the higher the rank the worse the performance.

NUTS NUTS 3 NUTS 4 NUTS 5Units 8 34 123Number of classes (in accordance with Sturges' rule) 4 6 8

127

References:

[1] ARD Inc. Financial Team, "Assessing the Borrowing Capacity of the Municipality of Pitesti,Romania"; Romania Local Government Bridge Program 2005

[2] Bahl & Linn, "Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries"; 1992, World Bank[3] Caluseru and Johnson, "Study on the reform of legal and regulatory framework for borrowing

by LGU"; 2005[4] Charles Jokey, "Credit rating for LGU"; training program in Macedonia in organization of CEA 2005[5] Davey, Kenneth, "Investing in Regional Development: Policies and Practices in EU Candidate

Countries." LGI/PSRI-Budapest, 2003[6] EAR Project on Strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning

in Macedonia, "Economic, Financial and Administrative Requisites of Approximation to the EuropeanUnion"; 2002-2003

[7] EAR Phase 2, "Implementation and Co-ordination of the Decentralization Process, 2006[8] Farber G, "Local government borrowing in Germany". In: B. Dafflon (ed) Local public finance in

Europe: Balancing the budget and controlling debt[9] Felix Ejgel, "Creditworthiness, Ratings and Debt Issuance Trends in CEE"; Presentation for the

training in LGU Credit Rating organized by CEA, Oct-Nov 2005 [10] "Fiscal Decentralization in Romania: Policy Reform Directions for the Short and Medium Term";

April, 2002[11] Fitch rating, "Special report for Romanian local authorities"; December 2003[12] Freedom House repot for Romania; 2004[13] IPP Romania, "Local budgets equalization policy in Romania"; February 2005 [14] J. Petersen and J. B. Crihfield, "Linkages Between Local Governments and Financial Markets:

A Tool Kit to Developing Sub-Sovereign Credit Markets in Emerging Economies"; World Bank April 2000[15] John Petersen with John B. Crihfield, "Linkages Between Local Governments and Financial

Markets: A Tool Kit to Developing Sub-Sovereign Credit Markets in Emerging Economies"; WB April 2000[16] Jorge Martinez Vazguez, "Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Romania: Challenges and

Options for Reform"; January 2006 draft [17] M. DeAngelis and G. Caluseru, "Municipal Credit and Finance in Romania"; USAID LGAP Oct.

2000 and Restatement from Jan. 2002[18] Pawel Swianiewicz, "Local government borrowing"; LGPSRI/OSI Budapest, 2004 [19] SchlumbergerSema, "Municipality Debt Assessment in Macedonia"; TA to the Ministry of

Finance on Fiscal Decentralization under EAR contract, 2004[20] T. Levitas, "An Introduction to Municipal Borrowing in Serbia"; LGRP Serbia, USAID/DAI (Draft 2006)[21] "Strategic Development Plan for Public Financial Management Reform in Romania 2005-2007"[22] Teresa Ter-Minassian, "Fiscal Federalism in Theory and Practice"; Washington DC, International

Monetary Fund 1997 [23] T.Spofford, "Fiscal Decentralization, Municipal Credit and Municipal Service Delivery in

Romania"; USAID LGAP April 2002[24] UNDP, "Fiscal Decentralization in Transition Economies: Case Studies from the Balkans and

Caucasus"; 2005 [25] Urban Institute, "Training needs assessment report for municipal credit market development in

Romania"; April - May 1998 [26] USAID ARD Inc., "Decentralization strategy: An analytical framework"; July 2005 [27] WB, "Mobilizing private finance for local infrastructure in Europe and Central Asia"; Working

paper 46, 2005

128

Publisher

For tthe ppublisher

Title

Editor

Project MManager

Authors/researchers

English pproofreading

Pre-ppress && CCover

Number oof ccopies

Printing ccompany


Marjan Nikolov

The Future of Local Government Finance:Case studies from Romania, Bulgaria andMacedonia

Marjan Nikolov

Marjan Nikolov

Marjan Nikolov, Malgorzata Markiewicz

Ian Maclein

Miroslav Milanovic

500 English, 500 Macedonian

GLOBAL Communications, Skopje

CIP - Katalogizacija vo publikacijaNacionalna i univerzitetska biblioteka “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, Skopje

352.073.52 (498)352.073.52 (497.2)352.073.52 (497.7)

The FUTURE of local government finance : case studies fromRomania, Bulgaria and Macedonia / editor Marjan Nikolov. - Skopje: Center for economic analyses-CEA, 2006. - 128 str. : tabeli; 24 cm

Fusnoti kon tekstot

ISBN 9989-2632-0-51. Nikolov, Marjana) Lokalna samouprava - finansii - Romanija b) Lokalna samouprava - finansii -Bugarija v) Lokalna samouprava - finansii - MakedonijaCOBISS.MK-ID 67807242

CCaassee ssttuuddiieess ffrroomm RRoommaanniiaa,,

BBuullggaarriiaa aanndd MMaacceeddoonniiaa

The FFuture oof LLocal

Government FFinance:

Case studies from Romania,Bulgaria and Macedonia

THE FUTUREOF LOCAL

GOVERNMENTFINANCECase studies from Romania,Bulgaria and Macedonia

THE FUTUREOF LOCAL

GOVERNMENTFINANCE

Contributors

MARJAN NIKOLOV, took his M.Sc. from the University of Iceland and is a President of the Centerfor Economic Analyses-CEA. Marjan Nikolov has extensive experience in fiscal decentralizationresearch.He has worked in numerous donors and Macedonian Government's sponsored projects. He haspresented several papers at international conferences and workshops at home and abroad.

MALGORZATA MARKIEWICZ graduated from the Department of Economics at the Warsaw University.She is a senior macroeconomists cooperating with CASE (Poland) and CEA (Macedonia).She specializes in public finance and participated in projects on economic policy reforms, fiscalmanagement, and macroeconomic modelling. She was working as a consultant in the followingtransition countries: Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Ukraine.She has published on fiscal policy, tax competition and economic policies in transition.

ISBN 9989-2632-0-5

Price: 300 denars

Center for Economic Analyses studies from Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia THE FUTURE OF LOCAL...

Documents

Transcript of Center for Economic Analyses studies from Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia THE FUTURE OF LOCAL...